Comparison of the efficacy of two anesthetic techniques of mandibular primary first molar: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The most common technique to anesthetize mandibular primary teeth is inferior alveolar (I.A) nerve block injection which induces a relatively sustained anesthesia and in turn may potentially traumatize soft-tissues. Therefore, the need of having an alternative technique of anesthesia with a shorter term but the same efficacy is reasonable. The aim of this study was a comparison of the efficacy of two anesthetic techniques of mandibular primary first molar. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this randomized crossover clinical trial, 40 children with ages ranged from 5 years to 8 years whose mandibular primary first molars were eligible for pulpotomy, were selected and divided randomly into two groups. The right and left mandibular first molars of group A were anesthetized with infiltration and I. A nerve block techniques in the first and second sessions respectively. The left and right mandibular first molars of group B were anesthetized with I.A nerve block and infiltration techniques in the first and second sessions respectively. The severity of pain were measured and recorded according to sound-eye-motor scale by a certain person. Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Mann-Whitney U tests (P > 0.05). RESULTS The severity of pain was lower in infiltration technique versus I.A nerve block. There were no significant differences between the severities of pain on pulpal exposure of two techniques. CONCLUSION It seems that infiltration technique is more favorable to anesthetize the mandibular primary first molar compared to I.A nerve block.