LOCAL ANESTHETIC INFILTRATION COMPARED TO NERVE BLOCK FOR DENTAL EXTRACTION, A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL IN A SAMPLE OF IRAQI POPULATION

Background: Proper dental therapy requires precise anesthetic administration. For this, multiple techniques and anesthetics are employed. The inferior block approach is commonly employed for the extraction of mandibular teeth, however not without the risk of common complications. This study compares two local anesthetic delivery methods to be utilized in minor dental surgery procedures. According to the results of this study, dental clinicians have new ways to streamline regular dental tasks. Objective: The goal of this trial was to compare how well a local anesthetic infiltration of 4% articaine will work versus a regional nerve block technique using 2% lidocaine in patients who need dental extraction of their first lower molar tooth. Materials and Methods: One hundred subjects were involved in this study and were separated into two groups (50 subjects per group). The involved patients were seeking dental care for the extraction of their mandibular 1st molar teeth under local anesthesia. The first group received 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as lingual and buccal infiltration, while the second group received a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:80,000). Pain was measured intraoperatively using a verbal rating scale (VRS). Results: According to statistical analysis, The pain score showed no significant difference among the study groups (0.294). Conclusions: According to these study findings, it was concluded that there was an almost equal effect of 4% articaine infiltration and 2% lidocaine nerve block, with minimal side effects that may be elicited by using the nerve block technique.