English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background:  Maintaining primary teeth in the oral cavity is of prime importance, and grossly carious teeth may require pulp therapy for the same. Pain on injection and incomplete anesthesia causes failure of the procedure and result in fear and anxiety. Various methods have evolved to overcome this; such as distraction, topical anesthesia, etc. A few techniques regaining popularity in dentistry in recent times is the warming or buffering of the solution prior to administration. This study thus aimed to compare and evaluate the anesthetic efficacy and the patient's pain reaction to pre-warmed, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in mandibular primary molars undergoing pulp therapy.  Methods:  The study is a randomized, split-mouth trial. Sixty children between six -12 years, requiring pulp therapy bilaterally on mandibular primary molars, were administered conventional, buffered or pre-warmed 2% lignocaine on two separate appointments. Various parameters were assessed using objective and subjective scales.  Results:  Pre-warmed and buffered anesthetics had lesser pain on injection (p&lt;0.001, p&lt;0.001) and pulp therapy (p=0.001, p=0.014), faster onset of action (p=0.004, p=0.001), lower SEM Sound (p=0.035, p=0.028), Eye (p&lt; 0.001, p=0.013) and Motor (p=0.008, p=0.021) scores and shorter duration of action (p&lt; 0.001, p=0.015). No significant difference was found between the two modified solutions. Thus pre-warmed and buffered anesthetic solutions fared better than the conventional solution for all parameters but had no advantage over each other.  Conclusion:  Buffering or pre-warming the anesthetic solution reduces pain on administration and during procedures in children.

journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects.

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of warm, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial