Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine infiltration versus 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of primary mandibular molars: A prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Control of pain during dental treatment is an essential aspect of pediatric dentistry. AIMS: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for primary mandibular molar extractions. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The study was a prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Bilateral symmetrical carious primary mandibular molar (n = 92) extractions in 46 healthy children aged 5-10 years were included in this randomized controlled trial. Extraction was performed on one side using 4% of articaine buccal infiltration and on the contralateral side using 2% lignocaine IANB in two subsequent appointments. Pain and behavior were assessed at baseline, during injection and extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale, Modified Behavior Pain Scale (MBPS), and Frankl Behavior Rating Scale. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Values thus obtained were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance test and compared using independent samples test. RESULTS: According to MBPS, the mean value of pain experienced in the form of cry during injection was reported to be more for 2% lignocaine IANB (1.76) as compared to 4% articaine buccal infiltration (1.30), which was statistically significant (P = 0.024). Comparison of behavior depicted showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with 4% articaine can be utilized as an effective alternative to 2% lignocaine IANB for primary mandibular molar extractions.