الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 169 |  |  |
| | | from | 169 | | |
Abstract
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. Intraoperative 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 ≤ 0.05. Cohen’s Kappa was performed to evaluate inter-examiner reliability of SEM scale values.
Results: Both groups showed nearly similar results regarding intraoperative pain using WongBaker 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).
Conclusion: Both the 4% Artpharmadent and 2% Mepecaine-L are equally effective in controlling intraoperative pain during extraction of mandibular molars and both are safe when used in children.