LOCAL ANESTHETIC INFILTRATION COMPARED TO NERVE BLOCK FOR DENTAL EXTRACTION, A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL IN A SAMPLE OF IRAQI POPULATION

Background: Proper dental therapy requires precise anesthetic administration. For this, multiple techniques
and anesthetics are employed. The inferior block approach is commonly employed for the extraction of
mandibular teeth, however not without the risk of common complications. This study compares two local
anesthetic delivery methods to be utilized in minor dental surgery procedures. According to the results of this
study, dental clinicians have new ways to streamline regular dental tasks.
Objective: The goal of this trial was to compare how well a local anesthetic infiltration of 4% articaine will
work versus a regional nerve block technique using 2% lidocaine in patients who need dental extraction of their
first lower molar tooth.
Materials and Methods: One hundred subjects were involved in this study and were separated into two groups
(50 subjects per group). The involved patients were seeking dental care for the extraction of their mandibular 1st
molar teeth under local anesthesia. The first group received 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as lingual
and buccal infiltration, while the second group received a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB)
technique with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:80,000). Pain was measured intraoperatively using a verbal
rating scale (VRS).
Results: According to statistical analysis, The pain score showed no significant difference among the study
groups (0.294).
Conclusions: According to these study findings, it was concluded that there was an almost equal effect of 4%
articaine infiltration and 2% lidocaine nerve block, with minimal side effects that may be elicited by using the
nerve block technique.