Aim: To determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children.
Methods: Patients aged 8-15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment.
Results: Twenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment.
Conclusion: This study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.
Keywords: Articaine; Children; Local anaesthetic; Local anaesthetic comparison; Mandibular molar.