LAUSR

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate if articaine has better efficacy as compared to lignocaine when used for infiltration anaesthesia for primary molar extractions. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials on paediatric patients comparing the infiltration of articaine with lignocaine for extraction of primary molar were included. Pain of extraction and successful palatal/lingual anaesthesia with single buccal infiltration was evaluated. Results: Six studies were included. We found no difference in pain scores when comparing singular buccal infiltrations of articaine and lignocaine for primary molar extractions. A meta-analysis of extraction pain scores from three studies indicated no statistically significant difference between buccal infiltration of articaine vs combined buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of lignocaine. Comparing buccal with palatal/lingual infiltration of both articaine and lignocaine with data from three studies, articaine was found to significantly reduce pain scores. Conclusion: Our review encompassing a limited number of studies suggests that single buccal infiltration of articaine may have a role in primary molar extractions. Articaine may have a better anaesthetic effect compared to lignocaine but the difference may not be clinically relevant.