Skip to main content
MedPathMedPath Home
Clinical Trials/EUCTR2011-004711-23-GB
EUCTR2011-004711-23-GB
Active, not recruiting
Not Applicable

Comparative studies of the anaesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine used as mandibular infiltration versus 2% Lidocaine used as inferior dental nerve block, in extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars in children. - Use of Articaine in Children Dentistry

eeds Dental Institute0 sitesMay 1, 2013
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to LinkedInShare to Reddit
ConditionsDental caries in primary molarsTherapeutic area: Diseases [C] - Mouth and tooth diseases [C07]
DrugsSeptanest 1:100,000-Articaine hydrochloride 4%with adrenaline (epinephrine) injection solution

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Dental caries in primary molars
Sponsor
eeds Dental Institute
Status
Active, not recruiting
Last Updated
10 years ago
OverviewInvestigatorsEligibility CriteriaOutcomesSimilar Trials

Overview

Brief Summary

No summary available.

Registry
who.int
Start Date
May 1, 2013
End Date
TBD
Last Updated
10 years ago
Study Type
Interventional clinical trial of medicinal product
Sex
All

Investigators

Sponsor
eeds Dental Institute

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • •a) Children aged 5–9 years.
  • •b) Medically fit (ASA I,II).
  • •c) Requiring extraction /restoration (pulpotomy treatment) of primary mandibular molar teeth
  • •under local anaesthetic.
  • •d) Understanding of English.
  • •e) Mentally capable of communication.
  • •f) Tooth without history of infection (abscess) or swelling and no evidence of periapical
  • •pathosis or soft tissue infection/inflammation near site of injection.
  • •g) Root resorption of the primary tooth must be less than two\-thirds of the root.
  • •h) Child must give assent form prior to participation, as well as parental informed written

Exclusion Criteria

  • •a) Medically and mentally compromised children.
  • •b) History of significant behaviour management problems
  • •c) Evidence of infection near the proposed injection site as this might affect the efficacy of local anaesthesia.
  • •d) Child does not speak English.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Not specified

Similar Trials

Not yet recruiting
Not Applicable
Comparison of two different anesthetic agents in extraction of milk teeth
CTRI/2023/06/053896Pooja Gupta
Completed
Phase 2
Evaluating the effect of conventional local anaesthesia anaesthesia (lignocaine), warming it and adding a buffer on the success of a nerve block in lower primary posterior teethHealth Condition 1: null- children aged 6-12 years, with bilateral vital pulp involvement in primary mandibular molars.
CTRI/2017/02/007922Reenu Sarah Kurien50
Completed
Phase 4
A clinical trial to compare the effects of two drugs, Articaine and Lidocaine in pain control during dental treatment, assessed through different methodsHealth Condition 1: K040- Pulpitis
CTRI/2020/09/027998Anu V F55
Not yet recruiting
Phase 2
Comparative evaluation of Anesthetic Efficacy of needleless anesthesia and conventional anesthesia in patients with Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. A Randomized Clinical TrialHealth Condition 1: K040- Pulpitis
CTRI/2021/12/038471Krishnakanth Jaju
Recruiting
Phase 1
Evaluation of Anesthetic efficacy of injection technique in single visit root canal therapyHealth Condition 1: null- Teeth from maxillary anterior segment with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic therapy.
CTRI/2017/05/008632KLE VK Institute of Dental Sciences Belgaum60