Articaine Infiltration Versus Lidocaine Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Anesthetizing Primary Mandibular Molars: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Pilot Study

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of articaine oral infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM). Methods: Four- to 10-year-old children who needed PMM restorations were enrolled according to inclusion criteria and randomly ullocuted into the articaine or lidocaine group. One operator administered all local anesthesia. Using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), 15 trained and calibrated examiners, blinded to LA type. evaluated the subjects' reactions during LA administration and treatment, Children rated their experience using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBS), Subjects' blood pressure and pulse throughout the visits were recorded, Statistical analysis included independent t-tests, Mann Whitney-U, and repeated measures analysis of variance (P<0.05). Examiner reliability was determined by Cohen's kappa score. Results: Thirty subjects (53 percent male; mean age: 63 years) participated. While the mean total scores for articaine (2.13 MBPS; 0.53 WBS) were better than for lidocaine (107 MBPS; 133 WBS), there were no statistically significant differences between groups. All physiological measurements were within normal limits. Conclusions: This pilot study indicated that orticaine infiltration might be as effective as a lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars; however, a larger sample is required to confirm these findings.