United Kingdom pediatric dentistry specialist views on the administration of articaine in children.
Articaine
Local anesthesia
Pain
Pediatric dentistry
Journal
Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine
ISSN: 2383-9309
Titre abrégé: J Dent Anesth Pain Med
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101690691
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
06
04
2020
revised:
17
07
2020
accepted:
13
08
2020
entrez:
16
11
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
17
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK. A literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed. Sixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients. Articaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK.
METHODS
METHODS
A literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Articaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33195808
doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.5.303
pmc: PMC7644358
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
303-312Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest relevant to this study.
Références
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 Jul;16(4):252-6
pubmed: 16759322
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2012 Dec;13(6):293-6
pubmed: 23235128
Local Reg Anesth. 2012;5:23-33
pubmed: 22915899
Anesth Prog. 1989 Nov-Dec;36(6):268-71
pubmed: 2490059
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020 Oct;21(5):617-622
pubmed: 31898299
J Endod. 2009 Mar;35(3):343-6
pubmed: 19249592
Aust Endod J. 2016 Apr;42(1):4-15
pubmed: 27062318
Pediatr Dent. 2015 Sep-Oct;37(5):71-7
pubmed: 26531078
SAAD Dig. 2016 Jan;32:7-13
pubmed: 27145553
Pediatr Dent. 2008 Nov-Dec;30(6):516-21
pubmed: 19186779
Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Sep;9(Suppl 2):S272-S277
pubmed: 30294157
Br Dent J. 2005 Dec 24;199(12):784-7; discussion 778
pubmed: 16395370
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2012 Winter;5(1):16-23
pubmed: 24834193
Anesth Prog. 2018 Summer;65(2):119-123
pubmed: 29952645
J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Feb;132(2):177-85
pubmed: 11217590
J Can Dent Assoc. 2009 Oct;75(8):579
pubmed: 19840499
J Calif Dent Assoc. 2012 Oct;40(10):795-7
pubmed: 23316560
Pediatr Dent. 2000 Jul-Aug;22(4):307-11
pubmed: 10969438
Int Endod J. 2009 Mar;42(3):238-46
pubmed: 19228214
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Jul;28(4):347-360
pubmed: 29635712
J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jul;141(7):836-44
pubmed: 20592403
Local Reg Anesth. 2011;4:35-40
pubmed: 22915891
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;40(4):301-5
pubmed: 27471808
Br Dent J. 2016 Feb 12;220(3):117-20
pubmed: 26868800
Pediatr Dent. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):424-8
pubmed: 18942603