COMPARISON BETWEEN SINGLE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS CONVENTIONAL BUCCAL AND PALATAL INFILTRATION FOR REMOVAL OF MAXILLARY MOLAR TEETH.

Abstract

Background: Although less painful injection techniques have been developed, most individuals still nd palatal injection to be unpleasant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ef Aims: cacy of single buccal inltration versus conventional buccal and palatal inltration for the removal of maxillary molar teeth. Fifty patie Materials and Methods: nts participated in a prospective randomized, split-mouth study, Group 1: 4% Articaine HCL inltration – Only buccal, Group 2: 2% Lignocaine HCL – Buccal and palatal inltration. Checking VAS score and Facial pain scale during Inltration and during extraction. Factor analysis was used to determine the signicance of the difference in mean scores between the two groups using both the independent sample t-test. Even though the Results: difference was not statistically signicant (P > 0.05), patients in the articaine group reported much less discomfort during having their vital maxillary molars extracted compared to the lignocaine group. As was previously m Conclusion: entioned, it is feasible to avoid the palatal injection while removing molars from the maxilla. Specically, the extraction of the upper molars, and buccal inltration with articaine is a viable alternative to the use of traditional local anaesthetic.