AnesthesiaNCT04865848
Comparison of Articaine Mandibular Infiltration to Lidocaine Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Pediatric Patients
A study testing Dental local anesthesia in people with Anesthesia, run by University of Illinois Chicago at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This is a prospective, single-blind, parallel-design randomized controlled clinical trial that aims compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 4 to 10 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Anesthesia
- What is being tested?
- Dental local anesthesia
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 42 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 5 Jun 2019to 5 May 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 4 to 10 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Per patient:
- Medical status: ASA I: a normal, healthy patient;
- Age range: from 4 to 10 year old patients (males and females);
- Past history of dental treatment using local anesthetic;
- Cooperative for dental treatment (Frankel 3 or 4);
- Obtained informed consent to participate in the study;
Show all 13Show fewer
- English speakers;
- Per tooth:
- Primary mandibular molar; Tooth that requires restorative dental care, including intracoronal or extracoronal restorations, due to:
- Caries;
- Pulp treatment (indirect pulp therapy, pulpotomy, or pulpectomy);
- Developmental defects;
- Tooth surface loss (erosion/attrition);
Who cannot join
- Per patient:
- Medical status: patients in category II,III, IV, V, VI of the ASA physical status classification system:
- Age: younger than 4 years of age or older than 10 years of age;
- No history of dental treatment using local anesthetic;
- Uncooperative for dental treatment (Frankel 1 or 2);
- Informed consent to participate in the study not obtained;
Show all 10Show fewer
- Non-English speakers;
- Per tooth:
- Tooth other than mandibular primary molar
- Tooth requiring extraction
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
College of Dentistry, Univesity of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, 60612
About this study
This is a prospective, single-blind, parallel-design randomized controlled clinical trial that aims compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM). Four to 10-year-old children who needed PMM restorations are enrolled according to inclusion criteria and randomly allocated into the articaine or lidocaine group. One operator administers all local anesthesia (LA). Using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale, 15 trained and calibrated examiners, blinded to LA type, evaluate the subjects' reactions during LA administration and treatment. Children rate their experience using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Subjects' blood pressure and pulse throughout the visit are recorded. Results are statistically analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann Whitney-U, and Repeated Measures ANOVA (P<0.05).
Read the detailed description
This is a parallel design randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mandibular infiltration anesthesia with Articaine in comparison to IANB with Lidocaine used for restorative and pulp therapy procedures in pediatric patients.
Lidocaine (2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride with 1:100,000 Epinephrine) and Articaine (4% Articaine Hydrochloride with 1:100,000 Epinephrine) are compared and evaluated for their effectiveness of anesthetizing primary mandibular molars for restorative and pulp therapy procedures. A number of clinical and behavioral variables including blood pressure, pulse, physical movements, and pain perception are evaluated.
Participants for this study will be recruited from the pool of patients attending the Post-graduate (PG) clinic at the Pediatric Dentistry Department of the College of Dentistry (COD), University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are specified separately for the selected patients and for the teeth involved. Informed consent from the parent/guardian and assent from the pediatric participant (7 years of age and older) will be obtained and signed. This is a prospective randomized clinical trial utilizing a random digit table for participant allocation into either the Articaine Group or the Lidocaine Group. The dosage of LA will be determined by the child's body weight and will not exceed the maximum recommended 4.4 mg/kg for Lidocaine and 7 mg/kg for Articaine. Before the injection, 20% Benzocaine topical anesthetic gel will be applied at the injection site with a cotton swab for approximately 3 minutes over dry mucosa. The randomly assigned LA, either Lidocaine IANB or Articaine infiltration, will be administered. One designated operator, an experienced specialist pediatric dentist, will conduct all LA injections to all participants. A trained and calibrated dental assistant (examiner A) will record the child's reactions during the LA administration using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), adapted by Taddio et al. 1994. This scale allows for objective evaluation of pain using multiple criteria such as facial display, movement of extremities, movement of torso, and crying. A second trained and calibrated investigator (examiner B), a resident in pediatric dentistry, who is blinded to the type of LA agent used, will complete the planned dental treatment for the primary mandibular molars. Examiner B will complete MBPS (#B) evaluating the patient's reactions during the dental treatment. Generally, effective LA results in less negative and more positive patient's reactions to the dental care. In total, 15 examiners A and 17 examiners B will take part in the study. All examiners will be trained and calibrated with respect to the use of MBPS. During the entire treatment visit, each participant will wear a pulse and blood pressure monitor. The machine will produce automatic recordings every 10 minutes. Patients that experience distress and pain can exhibit increased pulse and blood pressure values outside of the considered normal range per age. At the end of the dental visit, the pediatric patient will be asked to complete a Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Response Scale (PRS) for feedback of their experience with the entire dental visit. The PRS contains six images of varying facial expression ranging from laughter to tears which are assigned at numerical value for objective evaluation. All used data will be coded and captured on specifically designed for the purposes of the study evaluation forms. The data gathered through all study forms will be transferred into Microsoft® Excel 2018 and the statistical analysis will be carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics.
- Conditions
- Anesthesia
- Being tested
- Dental local anesthesia
- Keywords
- Lidocaine, Articaine, Children, Dental, Local, Anesthesia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Dental local anesthesiaProcedure or surgery
Dental local anesthesia
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Mandibular infiltration dental anesthesia with Articaine | Experimental | Step-by-step:
* Reflect tissue to expose injection site.
* Orient bevel of the needle to be parallel to the bone and insert needle into mucobuccal fold
* Proceed to the depth that approximates the apices of the buccal roots of the primary molars.
* Aspirate.
* Deposit bolus of local anesthetic slowly at a rate of 1 ml/min.
* Remove needle.
* A subsequent lingual infiltration is delivered.
The armamentarium includes: 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Septocaine ®, Septodont, Lancaster, Penn. USA) in 1.7 ml cartridges and 30-gauge short needle manufactured by Henry Schein® (Melville, N.Y., USA). All injections are given using a self-aspirating syringe (A-Titan, Orchard Park, N.Y., USA). Receives: Procedure: Dental local anesthesia |
| Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lidocaine | Active comparator | Step-by-step:
* Dry injection site with gauze.
* The barrel of the syringe should be directed on a plane between the two primary molars on the opposite side of the arch. It is advisable to inject a small amount of the solution as soon as the tissue is penetrated and to continue to inject minute quantities as the needle is directed toward the mandibular foramen.
Insert to the depth that is adjacent to bone.
* Aspirate.
* Slowly inject bolus of anesthetic at a rate of 1 ml/min.
* Remove needle.
The armamentarium includes 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Henry Schein ® Lidocaine, Novocol, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) in 1.7 ml cartridges, as well as 27-gauge long needles manufactured by Henry Schein® (Melville, N.Y., USA). All injections are given using a self-aspirating syringe (A-Titan, Orchard Park, N.Y., USA). Receives: Procedure: Dental local anesthesia |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM).
The primary outcome measure for this study is to compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM).
Measured: up to 24 hour later (as the parent is able to contact the principal investigator and report any issues). Numerical value of 0 is assigned to the cases that did not report any adverse events and a numerical value of 1 to reported adverse outcomes.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Secondary outcome measures
Pain assessment will be conducted using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), which measures infant pain during immunizations based on facial expression, cry, and bodily movements. Scores range from 0 to 10, comparable to the visual analog scale (VAS) for child pain assessment.
Measured: Immediately after procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Apr 2021
- Study start5 Jun 2019
- Primary completion5 May 2022
- Study completion5 May 2022
Why it stopped: research operation issues
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for AnesthesiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Illinois ChicagoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 42 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois Chicago
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Evelina Hristova Kratunova, University of Illinois Chicago
- Investigators
- Evelina Kratunova, Principal investigator, University of Illinois Chicago
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04865848
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2019-0160
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 14 May 2020
- Last updated
- 9 May 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Articaine Mandibular Infiltration to Lidocaine Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Pediatric Patients
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04865848
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2019-0160
- Conditions
- Anesthesia
- Keywords
- Lidocaine, Articaine, Children, Dental, Local, Anesthesia
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: research operation issues
- Enrolment
- 42 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois ChicagoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Jun 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 May 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 May 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Apr 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a prospective, single-blind, parallel-design randomized controlled clinical trial that aims compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM). Four to 10-year-old children who needed PMM restorations are enrolled according to inclusion criteria and randomly allocated into the articaine or lidocaine group. One operator administers all local anesthesia (LA). Using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale, 15 trained and calibrated examiners, blinded to LA type, evaluate the subjects' reactions during LA administration and treatment. Children rate their experience using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Subjects' blood pressure and pulse throughout the visit are recorded. Results are statistically analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann Whitney-U, and Repeated Measures ANOVA (P<0.05).
Detailed description
This is a parallel design randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mandibular infiltration anesthesia with Articaine in comparison to IANB with Lidocaine used for restorative and pulp therapy procedures in pediatric patients.
Lidocaine (2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride with 1:100,000 Epinephrine) and Articaine (4% Articaine Hydrochloride with 1:100,000 Epinephrine) are compared and evaluated for their effectiveness of anesthetizing primary mandibular molars for restorative and pulp therapy procedures. A number of clinical and behavioral variables including blood pressure, pulse, physical movements, and pain perception are evaluated.
Participants for this study will be recruited from the pool of patients attending the Post-graduate (PG) clinic at the Pediatric Dentistry Department of the College of Dentistry (COD), University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are specified separately for the selected patients and for the teeth involved. Informed consent from the parent/guardian and assent from the pediatric participant (7 years of age and older) will be obtained and signed. This is a prospective randomized clinical trial utilizing a random digit table for participant allocation into either the Articaine Group or the Lidocaine Group. The dosage of LA will be determined by the child's body weight and will not exceed the maximum recommended 4.4 mg/kg for Lidocaine and 7 mg/kg for Articaine. Before the injection, 20% Benzocaine topical anesthetic gel will be applied at the injection site with a cotton swab for approximately 3 minutes over dry mucosa. The randomly assigned LA, either Lidocaine IANB or Articaine infiltration, will be administered. One designated operator, an experienced specialist pediatric dentist, will conduct all LA injections to all participants. A trained and calibrated dental assistant (examiner A) will record the child's reactions during the LA administration using the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), adapted by Taddio et al. 1994. This scale allows for objective evaluation of pain using multiple criteria such as facial display, movement of extremities, movement of torso, and crying. A second trained and calibrated investigator (examiner B), a resident in pediatric dentistry, who is blinded to the type of LA agent used, will complete the planned dental treatment for the primary mandibular molars. Examiner B will complete MBPS (#B) evaluating the patient's reactions during the dental treatment. Generally, effective LA results in less negative and more positive patient's reactions to the dental care. In total, 15 examiners A and 17 examiners B will take part in the study. All examiners will be trained and calibrated with respect to the use of MBPS. During the entire treatment visit, each participant will wear a pulse and blood pressure monitor. The machine will produce automatic recordings every 10 minutes. Patients that experience distress and pain can exhibit increased pulse and blood pressure values outside of the considered normal range per age. At the end of the dental visit, the pediatric patient will be asked to complete a Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Response Scale (PRS) for feedback of their experience with the entire dental visit. The PRS contains six images of varying facial expression ranging from laughter to tears which are assigned at numerical value for objective evaluation. All used data will be coded and captured on specifically designed for the purposes of the study evaluation forms. The data gathered through all study forms will be transferred into Microsoft® Excel 2018 and the statistical analysis will be carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Mandibular infiltration dental anesthesia with Articaine | Experimental | Procedure: Dental local anesthesiaStep-by-step: * Reflect tissue to expose injection site. * Orient bevel of the needle to be parallel to the bone and insert needle into mucobuccal fold * Proceed to the depth that approximates the apices of the buccal roots of the primary molars. * Aspirate. * Deposit bolus of local anesthetic slowly at a rate of 1 ml/min. * Remove needle. * A subsequent lingual infiltration is delivered. The armamentarium includes: 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Septocaine ®, Septodont, Lancaster, Penn. USA) in 1.7 ml cartridges and 30-gauge short needle manufactured by Henry Schein® (Melville, N.Y., USA). All injections are given using a self-aspirating syringe (A-Titan, Orchard Park, N.Y., USA). |
| Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lidocaine | Active comparator | Procedure: Dental local anesthesiaStep-by-step: * Dry injection site with gauze. * The barrel of the syringe should be directed on a plane between the two primary molars on the opposite side of the arch. It is advisable to inject a small amount of the solution as soon as the tissue is penetrated and to continue to inject minute quantities as the needle is directed toward the mandibular foramen. Insert to the depth that is adjacent to bone. * Aspirate. * Slowly inject bolus of anesthetic at a rate of 1 ml/min. * Remove needle. The armamentarium includes 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Henry Schein ® Lidocaine, Novocol, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) in 1.7 ml cartridges, as well as 27-gauge long needles manufactured by Henry Schein® (Melville, N.Y., USA). All injections are given using a self-aspirating syringe (A-Titan, Orchard Park, N.Y., USA). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 4 to 10 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Medical status: ASA I: a normal, healthy patient;
- Age range: from 4 to 10 year old patients (males and females);
- Past history of dental treatment using local anesthetic;
- Cooperative for dental treatment (Frankel 3 or 4);
- Obtained informed consent to participate in the study;
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Per patient:
- Medical status: patients in category II,III, IV, V, VI of the ASA physical status classification system:
- Age: younger than 4 years of age or older than 10 years of age;
- No history of dental treatment using local anesthetic;
- Uncooperative for dental treatment (Frankel 1 or 2);
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Dental local anesthesiaDental local anesthesia | Procedure or surgery | Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lidocaine, Mandibular infiltration dental anesthesia with Articaine |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM).
Time frame: up to 24 hour later (as the parent is able to contact the principal investigator and report any issues). Numerical value of 0 is assigned to the cases that did not report any adverse events and a numerical value of 1 to reported adverse outcomes.
The primary outcome measure for this study is to compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM).
1 secondary outcome
Secondary outcome measures
Time frame: Immediately after procedure
Results and safety
The study was stopped early (reason given: research operation issues). Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 May 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Anesthesia
Not yet recruitingObservational study
"Comparison of Oxygen Reserve Index (ORI), End-Tidal Oxygen, and Time-Based Preoxygenation Targets With Arterial Blood Gas During Preoxygenation
Preoxygenation Adequacy Assessed by Oxygen Reserve Index, End-tidal Oxygen and Arterial Blood Gas
RecruitingObservational study
Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses During Anesthesia Induction Using Eleveld and Schnider
Spinal (Fusion) Surgery, Total Intravenous Anesthesia
Not yet recruiting
A Randomized Controlled SaCo-VLM Trial
General Anaesthesia Using Supraglotic Airway
Not yet recruiting
Bispectral Index-Guided Propofol Sedation During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Deep Sedation, Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
RecruitingPhase 4
Comparison of Hemodynamics and Respiratory Function Between Ciprofol and Propofol in Elderly Patients Undergoing Non-intubated General Anesthesia
Comparison of Hemodynamics and Respiratory Function Between Ciprofol and Propofol in Elderly Patients Undergoing Non-intubated General Anesthesia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Evelina Kratunova principal investigator
University of Illinois Chicago
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Dental local anesthesia in people with Anesthesia, run by University of Illinois Chicago at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 13 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was stopped early (reason given: research operation issues). Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness of articaine local infiltration to lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMM). (time frame: up to 24 hour later (as the parent is able to contact the principal investigator and report any issues). Numerical value of 0 is assigned to the cases that did not report any adverse events and a numerical value of 1 to reported adverse outcomes.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 May 2024.