الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 113 |  |  |
| | | from | 113 | | |
Abstract
Effective pain control during pulpotomy of primary molars is the most important part in the dental procedure to obtain a positive behavior of the child during treatment and to build a trust and co-operation in the following dental visits. Aim of the study: Evaluation of the efficacy of infiltration anesthesia using 4% articaine compared to inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using mepivacaine Hcl 2% in mandibular second primary molar pulpotomy with regard to pain and behavior. Method: Fifty patients aged 7-9 years old, who needed pulpotomy for both mandibular 2nd primary molars were selected from the Pediatric Dental Clinic, Faculty of dentistry, Mansoura University. Each child chose an envelope from previously prepared 50 envelopes to be assigned for articaine buccal infiltration (BI) or mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique (IANB) in the 1st visit. Also children chose an envelope to determine whether to begin with the right or left 2nd primary molar. Pain scores were recorded using Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS). Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was used for pain self assessment. The cooperative behavior was evaluated twice at each visit using Frankl’s scale. Any adverse events after dental treatment were recorded. The data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: No significant difference in pain scores between articaine (BI) and mepivacaine (IANB) during pulpotomy using (MBPS) although patients reported less pain with articaine (BI) using (VAS). There was a better cooperation of the child when articaine infiltration was used. Four cases reported self inflicted trauma after mepivacaine nerve block anesthesia and one patient after articaine (BI). Conclusion: Buccal infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine has a comparable anesthetic outcome to 2% mepivacaine inferior alveolar nerve block in pulpotomy treatment of the 2nd mandibular primary molars.