Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation
Conditions
Keywords
local anesthesia, Lidocaine 2%, Articaine 4%, molars
Brief summary
Comparison of injection pain with lidocaine and articaine. Comparison of the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine during treatment of MIH- maxillary molars. Design: A randomized, controlled, crossover, Triple-blinding clinical study including twenty six cooperative children, aged 6-12years old
Detailed description
Background and Aims: Some dentists have difficulty obtaining effective anesthesia when treating MIH molars. There are no studies comparing the effectiveness of lidocaine and articaine in MIH-maxillary molars. Design: A randomized, controlled, crossover, Triple-blinding clinical study including twenty six cooperative children , aged 6-12 years old. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the second solution being used at the second session.
Interventions
DRUGLidocaine 2%
The child will be injected with lidocaine 2%,after that the treatment will be completed , Pain during injection and treatment will be assessed using the FLACC scale and pain after injection and treatment will be evaluated using the Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale
DRUGArticaine 4%
The child will be injected with 4% Articaine, after that the treatment will be completed , Pain during injection and treatment will be assessed using the FLACC scale and Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale
Sponsors
Tishreen University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
as neither the child/parent, the investigator who performed the anesthesia/treatment, nor the assessors were aware of the type of anesthetic solution in order to avoid bias towards one of the solutions
Intervention model description
A randomized, controlled, crossover, Triple-blinding clinical study, Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2%
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Absolute positive or positive behavior according to the Frankel Scale. * child is not under the effect of any analgesics or sedatives and their weight was more than 20 kg. * Healthy, both physically and mentally * A child with a MIH-affected maxillary permanent first molar on the right and left sides .
Exclusion criteria
* children who are uncooperative * allergic anesthetics used in the study * children who show inflammation in the injection site.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| injection pain | during the injection of local anesthesia procedure | evaluated by outcome assessor using the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Behavioral Pain Rating Scale ( FLACC scale ) ( a behavioral pain assessment scale which has five criteria face, legs, activity, cry, consolability ,which are each assigned a score of 0, 1 or 2.Total score of scale is summed in range 0 to 10, where: 0=relaxed and comfortable; 1-3=mild discomfort; 4-6=moderate pain; 7-10=severe pain).. |
| dental pain | during procedure | evaluated by outcome assessor using the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Behavioral Pain Rating Scale ( FLACC scale ) ( a behavioral pain assessment scale which has five criteria face, legs, activity, cry, consolability ,which are each assigned a score of 0, 1 or 2.Total score of scale is summed in range 0 to 10, where: 0=relaxed and comfortable; 1-3=mild discomfort; 4-6=moderate pain; 7-10=severe pain).. |
Countries
Syria
Outcome results
None listed