الفهرس 
Anesthetic efficacy of 4% artpharmadent versus 2% Mepecaine-l for infiltration anesthesia in extraction Of badly decayed lower first primary molars :
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 169 |  |  |
| | | from | 169 | | |
Abstract
Aim: the present study aimed to compare intraoperative pain and need of supplemental anesthesia during the extraction of badly decayed mandibular first primary molar using 4% Artpharmadent and 2% Mepecaine-L anesthetic solutions for infiltration in children aged from 6 to 8 years. The present study also aimed to identify the incidence of the adverse effects after the anesthetic injection, and evaluate clinical success of the treatment using 4% Artpharmadent and 2% Mepecaine-L. Methodology: Twenty children with 20 badly decayed mandibular first primary molars indicated for extraction divided randomly into two equal groups (n= 10), group A received 4% Artpharmadent and group B received 2% Mepecaine-L anesthetic solution for infiltration. Intra-operative pain, need of supplemental injection during extraction, adverse effects following the anesthetic injection, and the clinical success of the treatment were evaluated for both groups. Statistical analysis used in this study were Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests to assess data normality, Independent Student t-test to compare age between study groups, Chi-square to compare frequency of qualitative data and Mann- Whitney test to compare pain assessment scales between study groups. The significance level was set at p {u2264} 0.05. Cohen{u2019}s Kappa was performed to evaluate inter-examiner reliability of SEM scale values. Results: Both groups showed nearly similar results regarding intraoperative pain using Wong-Baker Face Pain Scale (WBFPS), and Sound, eyes and motor (SEM) scale, regarding the need of supplemental injection during the extraction, and the adverse effects following the anesthetic injection (non-significant difference statistically)