Lidocaine versus Mepivacaine in Sedated Pediatric Dental Patients: Randomized, Prospective Clinical Study

Calis A. S., Cagiran E., EFEOĞLU C., Ak A. T., KOCA H.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, vol.39, no.1, pp.74-78, 2014 (SCI-Expanded) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 39 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2014
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.74-78
  • Keywords: Lidocaine, Mepivacaine, Sedation, Anxiety, children, ANESTHETIC EFFICACY, EPINEPHRINE, MIDAZOLAM
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: No


Dental anxiety is usually seen in the pediatric patients. specially in the case of minor oral surgical procedures and exodontia, cooperation of the patients and their families with the dentist will lead to superior treatment outcomes. Pain control is important in dentistry. The aim of this randomized prospective clinical study is to compare the local anaesthetic and haemodynamic effects of 2% lidocaine (Group I) and 3% mepivacaine (Group 2) in sedated pediatric patients undergoing primary tooth extraction. Study design: 60 pediatric patients undergoing sedation for elective primary tooth extraction was prospectively included in the study in a randomized fashion. Inclusion and exlusion criteria were assigned. Patients were given premedication via oral route. Local anesthesia was achieved before extraction(s). Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in patient demographics, number of teeth extracted, duration of the operation and time from the end of the procedure to discharge (p> 0.05). FLACC pain scale scores were not statistically significant between the groups, except at 20 minutes post-operatively when the score is significantly lower in Group 2 (p=0.029). Conclusion: Prevention of pain during dental procedures can nurture the relationship of the patient and dentist. Tooth extraction under sedation in pediatric patients could be safe with both local anesthetics.