EFFICIENCY OF SINGLE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS BUCCAL AND INTRAPAPILLARY INFILTRATION USING 4 % ARTICAINE DURING EXTRACTION OF PRIMARY MAXILLARY MOLARS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of single buccal infiltration versus buccal and intrapapillary infiltration using 4% Articaine during the extraction of primary maxillary molar teeth. Material and Methods: Twenty-five children aged 6-9 years were included in this split-mouth study. Children were classified into two groups: (Group A) children received single buccal infiltration and (Group B) received buccal infiltration combined with intrapapillary injection. The pain was assessed subjectively by self-report of pain after anesthesia and extraction using the face rating scale (FRS); behavior pain assessment during anesthesia and extraction was assessed using the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC), and the physiological objective pain measurement, at baseline, was evaluated by measuring the heart rate and blood pressure, after anesthesia and after extraction. Values were presented as median and range. Results: Pain was significantly lower in Group A after anesthesia than in Group B, FRS (p= 0.032) FLACC (p= 0.011). However, after extraction, pain was statistically reduced in Group B than in Group A, WBFRS (p= 0.018), FLACC (p= 0.018). The success rate of anesthesia in Group B (92%) was significantly higher than in Group A (64%) (p= 0.017). Conclusion: Combined buccal and intrapapillary infiltration of Articaine 4% buccal infiltration is more effective than single buccal infiltration in alleviating pain during primary maxillary molar teeth extraction.