Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine During Primary Maxillary Molar Extractions in Children.

Recent evidence has shown that buccal infiltration with articaine alone can be used to anesthetize dental tissues for various dental procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of articaine compared to lidocaine for extraction of primary maxillary molars and assess whether palatal anesthesia could be achieved with buccal infiltration injection but without the need for palatal infiltration.One hundred and two children requiring primary maxillary molar extraction were randomly selected to receive buccal infiltration using either articaine or lidocaine. During extraction, The Wong Baker Facial Pain Scale (FPS) was employed for subjective evaluation and Modified Behavior Pain Scale (MBPS) values, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded for objective evaluation. Effectiveness of anesthesia was checked using subjective symptoms and probing.Palatal anesthesia with buccal infiltration could not be obtained in any of the groups. Statistically significantly higher MBPS pain scale values were seen with lidocaine as compared to articaine. FPS, heart rate, and blood pressure values presented no statistically significant difference in the two groups.Although buccal infiltration with articaine failed to provide adequate palatal anesthesia, it can still be considered a good alternative to lidocaine for local anesthesia in children.