Effectiveness of Buffered Lidocaine With Sodium Bicarbonate Versus Conventional Lidocaine as Local Anesthetic Solutions for Pain Management in Pediatric Dentistry: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Crossover, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

IF 2.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Abolfaz Shiri Varnamkhasti, Sajjad Amiri, Raziyeh Shojaeipour, Milad Mollaali
{"title":"Effectiveness of Buffered Lidocaine With Sodium Bicarbonate Versus Conventional Lidocaine as Local Anesthetic Solutions for Pain Management in Pediatric Dentistry: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Crossover, Double-Blind Clinical Trial","authors":"Abolfaz Shiri Varnamkhasti,&nbsp;Sajjad Amiri,&nbsp;Raziyeh Shojaeipour,&nbsp;Milad Mollaali","doi":"10.1002/cre2.70435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Managing injection pain is critical for pediatric patient cooperation. The clinical benefit of using 7.5% sodium bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine, compared to its unbuffered counterpart, has not been extensively studied in children using a controlled split-mouth design. Hence, this clinical trial aimed to compare the pain control efficacy of buffered versus conventional lidocaine in pediatric dentistry, assessing pain during injection, anesthetic depth, and anesthetic onset.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A randomized, split-mouth, crossover, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 53 healthy children referred to the Kerman Dental School. Children requiring local anesthesia for the same dental procedure on two molars of the same name in one jaw were randomly assigned to Group 1 (first session: conventional 2% lidocaine; second session: buffered 2% lidocaine with 7.5% sodium bicarbonate) and Group 2 (reverse sequence). The two sessions were separated by a 1‑week washout period. Pain during injection was assessed using the SEM (Sound, Eye, Motor) scale and the FPS-R (Facial Pain Scale-Revised), and pulse rate changes were monitored. The SEM scale also assessed both the anesthetic onset and depth.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Buffered lidocaine resulted in significantly lower SEM scores during injection (a 17% reduction; Exp(<i>β</i>) = 1.17, 95% CI [1.10, 1.23], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and faster anesthetic onset (a 6% improvement; Exp(<i>β</i>) = 1.06, 95% CI [1.01, 1.11], <i>p</i> = 0.011) compared with conventional lidocaine. These improvements did not extend to subjective pain scores (FPS‑R), where no significant difference was observed. Pulse rate increased similarly after the injection of either local anesthetic formulation, with no treatment‑dependent hemodynamic effect.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The administration of buffered lidocaine with 7.5% sodium bicarbonate significantly improved objective behavioral outcomes, as evidenced by lower SEM scores and a quicker onset, compared to conventional lidocaine. While these findings did not extend to subjective pain scores, the reduction in physical distress behaviors advocates for its clinical use in pediatric dental procedures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>IRCT20241119063775N1.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10203,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","volume":"12 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13506132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.70435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Managing injection pain is critical for pediatric patient cooperation. The clinical benefit of using 7.5% sodium bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine, compared to its unbuffered counterpart, has not been extensively studied in children using a controlled split-mouth design. Hence, this clinical trial aimed to compare the pain control efficacy of buffered versus conventional lidocaine in pediatric dentistry, assessing pain during injection, anesthetic depth, and anesthetic onset.

Material and Methods

A randomized, split-mouth, crossover, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 53 healthy children referred to the Kerman Dental School. Children requiring local anesthesia for the same dental procedure on two molars of the same name in one jaw were randomly assigned to Group 1 (first session: conventional 2% lidocaine; second session: buffered 2% lidocaine with 7.5% sodium bicarbonate) and Group 2 (reverse sequence). The two sessions were separated by a 1‑week washout period. Pain during injection was assessed using the SEM (Sound, Eye, Motor) scale and the FPS-R (Facial Pain Scale-Revised), and pulse rate changes were monitored. The SEM scale also assessed both the anesthetic onset and depth.

Results

Buffered lidocaine resulted in significantly lower SEM scores during injection (a 17% reduction; Exp(β) = 1.17, 95% CI [1.10, 1.23], p < 0.001) and faster anesthetic onset (a 6% improvement; Exp(β) = 1.06, 95% CI [1.01, 1.11], p = 0.011) compared with conventional lidocaine. These improvements did not extend to subjective pain scores (FPS‑R), where no significant difference was observed. Pulse rate increased similarly after the injection of either local anesthetic formulation, with no treatment‑dependent hemodynamic effect.

Conclusions

The administration of buffered lidocaine with 7.5% sodium bicarbonate significantly improved objective behavioral outcomes, as evidenced by lower SEM scores and a quicker onset, compared to conventional lidocaine. While these findings did not extend to subjective pain scores, the reduction in physical distress behaviors advocates for its clinical use in pediatric dental procedures.

Trial Registration

IRCT20241119063775N1.

缓冲利多卡因加碳酸氢钠与传统利多卡因作为小儿牙科疼痛管理局部麻醉方案的有效性:一项随机、裂口、交叉、双盲临床试验。
目的:处理注射疼痛是儿科患者合作的关键。使用7.5%碳酸氢钠缓冲利多卡因与无缓冲利多卡因相比的临床益处,尚未在使用控制裂口设计的儿童中进行广泛研究。因此,本临床试验旨在比较缓冲利多卡因与常规利多卡因在儿科牙科中的疼痛控制效果,评估注射、麻醉深度和麻醉开始时的疼痛。材料和方法:随机、裂口、交叉、双盲临床试验,涉及53名转介到Kerman牙科学校的健康儿童。对同一颌同一名称的两颗磨牙进行相同牙科手术需要局部麻醉的儿童随机分为第一组(第一组:常规2%利多卡因;第二组:缓冲2%利多卡因加7.5%碳酸氢钠)和第二组(相反顺序)。两个疗程之间有1周的洗脱期。使用SEM(声音、眼睛、运动)量表和FPS-R(面部疼痛量表-修订版)评估注射过程中的疼痛,并监测脉搏变化。扫描电镜量表也评估麻醉的开始和深度。结果:缓冲利多卡因可显著降低注射时的SEM评分(降低17%);Exp(β) = 1.17, 95% CI [1.10, 1.23], p结论:与常规利多卡因相比,7.5%碳酸氢钠缓冲利多卡因可显著改善客观行为结果,SEM评分更低,起效更快。虽然这些发现并没有延伸到主观疼痛评分,身体痛苦行为的减少提倡在儿科牙科手术的临床应用。试验注册:IRCT20241119063775N1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Dental Research aims to provide open access peer-reviewed publications of high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work within all disciplines and fields of oral medicine and dentistry. The scope of Clinical and Experimental Dental Research comprises original research material on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of oro-facial, oro-pharyngeal and maxillofacial tissues, and functions and dysfunctions within the stomatognathic system, and the epidemiology, aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of diseases and conditions that have an effect on the homeostasis of the mouth, jaws, and closely associated structures, as well as the healing and regeneration and the clinical aspects of replacement of hard and soft tissues with biomaterials, and the rehabilitation of stomatognathic functions. Studies that bring new knowledge on how to advance health on the individual or public health levels, including interactions between oral and general health and ill-health are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书