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 inltration versus conventional buccal and palatal inltration 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 inltration – Only buccal, Group 2: 2% Lignocaine HCL – Buccal and palatal inltration. Checking VAS score and Facial pain scale during Inltration and during extraction. Factor analysis was used to determine the signicance 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 signicant (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. Specically, the extraction of the upper molars, and buccal inltration with articaine is a viable alternative to the use of traditional local anaesthetic.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have