• Sinuba Naidu, Pat Loughlin, Susan E Coldwell, Carolyn J Noonan, and Peter Milgrom.
• Department of Dental Public Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7475, USA.
• Anesth Prog. 2004 Jan 1;51(1):19-23.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that dental pain control using infiltration/intrapapillary injection was less effective than inferior alveolar block/long buccal infiltration anesthesia in children. A total of 101 healthy children, aged 5-8 years, who had no contraindication for local anesthetic and who needed a pulpotomy treatment and stainless steel crown placement in a lower primary molar were studied. A 2-group randomized blinded controlled design was employed comparing the 2 local anesthesia techniques using 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine. All children were given 40% nitrous oxide. Children self-reported pain using the Color Analogue Scale. The study was conducted in a private pediatric dental practice in Mount Vernon, Wash. Overall pain levels reported by the children were low, and there were no differences between conditions at any point in the procedure. Pain reports for clamp placement were block/long buccal 2.8 and infiltration/intrapapillary 1.9 (P = .1). Pain reports for drilling were block/long buccal 2.0 and infiltration/intrapapillary 1.8 (P = .7). Nine percent of children required supplementary local anesthetic: 4 of 52 (7.7%) in the block/long buccal group and 5 of 49 (10.2%) in the infiltration/intrapapillary group (P = .07). The hypothesis that block/long buccal would be more effective than infiltration/intrapapillary was not supported. There was no difference in pain control effectiveness between infiltration/intrapapillary injection and inferior alveolar block/long buccal infiltration using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when mandibular primary molars received pulpotomy treatment and stainless steel crowns.

33 keywords...

hide…