Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review

Sunny Priyatham Tirupathi, Srinitya Rajasekhar, Sunny Priyatham Tirupathi, Srinitya Rajasekhar

Abstract

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

Keywords: Articaine; Buccal Administration; Children; Inferior Alveolar Nerve; Lignocaine; Tooth Extraction.

Conflict of interest statement

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Copyright © 2020 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Figures

Fig. 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram
Fig. 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram
Fig. 2. Risk of bias summary
Fig. 2. Risk of bias summary

References

    1. Abu Sharkh M, Khalil A, Ong-Ly C, Wilson TD, Galil K. Buccal injection of articaine to anesthetize the palatal mucosa. Gen Dent. 2019;67:26–30.
    1. Bataineh AB, Al-Sabri GA. Extraction of maxillary teeth using articaine without a palatal injection: a comparison between the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:87–91.
    1. Lima JL, Jr, Dias-Ribeiro E, Ferreira-Rocha J, Soares R, Costa FWG, Fan S, et al. Comparison of buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 epinephrine for extraction of maxillary third molars with pericoronitis: a pilot study. Anesth Prog. 2013;60:42–45.
    1. Lima-Júnior JL, Dias-Ribeiro E, de Araújo TN, Ferreira-Rocha J, Honfi-Júnior ES, Sarmento CF, et al. Evaluation of the buccal vestibule-palatal diffusion of 4% articaine hydrochloride in impacted maxillary third molar extractions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14:E129–E132.
    1. Luqman U, Majeed Janjua OS, Ashfaq M, Irfan H, Mushtaq S, Bilal A. Comparison of articaine and lignocaine for uncomplicated maxillary exodontia. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015;25:181–184.
    1. Majid OW, Ahmed AM. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in equivalent doses as buccal and non-palatal infiltration for maxillary molar extraction: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:737–743.
    1. Peng M, Zhu ZM, Yang XM. feasibility of permanent maxillary tooth removal using articaine anesthesia without palatal injection. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008;26:416–418.
    1. Sandilya V, Andrade NN, Mathai PC, Aggarwal N, Sahu V, Nerurkar S. A randomized control trial comparing buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine for the extraction of maxillary premolar teeth. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10:284–288.
    1. Uckan S, Dayangac E, Araz K. Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102:733–735.
    1. Bataineh AB, Alwarafi MA. Patient's pain perception during mandibular molar extraction with articaine: a comparison study between infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:2241–2250.
    1. Venkat Narayanan J, Gurram P, Krishnan R, Muthusubramanian V, Sadesh Kannan V. Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;21:295–299.
    1. Alzahrani F, Duggal MS, Munyombwe T, Tahmassebi JF. Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28:335–344.
    1. Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:325–333.
    1. Bataineh AB, Nusair YM, Al-Rahahleh RQ. Comparative study of articaine and lidocaine without palatal injection for maxillary teeth extraction. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:3239–3248.
    1. Jorgenson K, Burbridge L, Cole B. Comparison of the efficacy of a standard inferior alveolar nerve block versus articaine infiltration for invasive dental treatment in permanent mandibular molars in children: a pilot study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21:171–177.
    1. Kolli NK, Nirmala SV, Nuvvula S. The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: a randomized control trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11:160–164.
    1. Kumar DP, Sharma M, Patil V, Subedar RS, Lakshmi GV, Manjunath NV. Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1st molar. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2019;9:239–246.
    1. Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M. a comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5:463–469.
    1. Massignan C, Silveira Santos P, Cardoso M, Bolan M. Efficacy and adverse events of 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine on primary molar extraction: a randomised controlled trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47:1031–1040.
    1. Mittal M, Sharma S, Kumar A, Chopra R, Srivastava D. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extractions in children. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:520–524.
    1. Rathi NV, Khatri AA, Agrawal AG, M SB, Thosar NR, Deolia SG. Anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration articaine versus lidocaine for extraction of primary molar teeth. Anesth Prog. 2019;66:3–7.
    1. Zain M, Rehman Khattak SU, Sikandar H, Shah SA, Fayyaz Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine primary buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular first molar teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016;26:4–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe