No abstract

The results suggest that the most successful technique for obturation of primary teeth was past inject.

IntroductionUsually discomfort and pain are associated with dental work, especially for young patients. Pain control can be achieved by using anesthesia. Sight of injection can terrify any patient and if the patient is a child it is really difficult to convince them for injections. Alternatives to injections have been explored. Pediatric dentists are using anesthesia in the form of jelly and patch. Recently, the concept of mucosal vibration has been put forward to enhance the effectiveness of local anesthesia.AimThe aim of the present study was to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of lignocaine jelly and mucosal vibration in reducing pain during administration of local anesthesia in pediatric dental patients.Materials and methodsThirty children in the age group 6 to 11 years who required bilateral anesthesia for dental treatment in mandible were selected for this study. Pain was compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test at the time of injection using Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scale as objective criteria and facial pain rating (FPR) scale as subjective criteria after administration of injection by a trained assistant who was blinded to the procedure.ResultsLocal anesthetic injection along with mucosal vibration resulted in significantly less pain (p = 0.001) in comparison with the injections without the use of mucosal vibration.ConclusionThe result shows that mucosal vibration can be used as an effective means to reduce the intensity of pain during local anesthetic injection in dentistry.How to cite this article: Tandon S, Kalia G, Sharma M, Mathur R, Rathore K, Gandhi M. Comparative Evaluation of Mucosal Vibrator with Topical Anesthetic Gel to reduce Pain during Administration of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients: An in vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(4):261-265.

No abstract

Background Correct working length determination is one of the main factors leading to success in root canal treatment. The digital tactile sense technique and conventional radiography (CR) are common techniques for working length determination but both techniques have some limitations. A newer method of working length estimation involves use of the apex locator. The current study was carried out to compare the accuracy of the apex locator with a tactile and conventional radiographic method for working length determination in primary and permanent teeth. Materials and methods The study was conducted on 60 children selected randomly from the outpatient department of the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry. The patients were divided into two groups: primary and permanent. An informed consent was obtained. After radiographic confirmation of the presence of more than two-third root length access, opening was done in all the teeth. The pulp was extirpated completely from the chamber and canals. Canals were dried completely using paper points. Working length was determined by all the three methods, i.e., digital tactile method, apex locator, and conventional intraoral periapical radiographic method in both primary and permanent teeth. Results The data were coded and entered into the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The analysis was done using the SPSS version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) Windows software program. The variables were assessed for normality using the one-way ANOVA test. Within the limitations of this study, working lengths obtained by the tactile method, the apex locator, and the radiographic method were comparable. There was no statistically significant difference among the three methods except in mesiolingual and distobuccal canals of permanent teeth. Conclusion The apex locator can serve as a useful guide to determine the working length in permanent as well as primary teeth. How to cite this article Rathore K, Tandon S, Sharma M, et al. Comparison of Accuracy of Apex Locator with Tactile and Conventional Radiographic Method for Working Length Determination in Primary and Permanent Teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(3):235–239.