Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus mandibular block anaesthesia in treating primary canines in children

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared with mandibular block in treating primary canines in children and to relate the effectiveness to the type of treatment performed. A total of 89 children, 6-9 years old, requiring identical treatment on contralateral mandibular canines were selected. The split mouth study design was used. The anaesthetic used in both techniques was 2% lidocaine solution with 1 : 80,000 epinephrine. Dental procedures included class III, IV, and V restorations, formocresol pulpotomies, and extractions. Child's pain reaction and behaviour for each anaesthesia technique and the type of treatment were rated at certain intervals of treatment using sounds, motor, and ocular changes indicating pain and the Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale. Evaluations were made upon injection, probing, rubber dam placement, and during tooth preparation and extraction. No statistically significant difference was found between the two anaesthetic techniques for either pain or behaviour at all evaluation intervals (P > 0.05), during the performance of restorations, pulpotomies, or during extractions. Mandibular infiltration anaesthesia is as effective as mandibular block for restoration, pulpotomy, and extraction in primary canines. The mandibular infiltration anaesthesia was not significantly less painful than the mandibular block.