Objective: the objective of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of a relatively new locally manufactured articaine (Artpharmadent 4% 1/100.000, made in Egypt) versus imported articaine (Artinibsa 4% 1:100.000, made in France) in buccal infiltration anesthesia during extraction of primary molars.
Subjects and Methods: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth comparative study was conducted on children aged from 6 - 10 years old having bilateral badly decayed mandibular or maxillary primary molars. Children were randomly chosen from the outpatient clinic of paediatric dentistry department, Cairo University. Split-mouth technique was followed to give buccal infiltrations of Artpharmadent on one side and Artinibsa on the other at separate visits. Child pain and behaviour were assessed using Wong–Baker FACES pain rating scale and face, leg, activity, cry and consolability (FLACC) Behavioural Pain Assessment Scale.
Results: Both anaesthetic types showed comparable and high clinical effectiveness in pain control during extraction. FLACC behavioural pain scale showed insignificant difference with both local anaesthetics.
Conclusion: locally manufactured articaine buccal infiltration anesthesia is effective as imported one. It showed deep and painless alternative to anaesthetize primary molars and related supporting tissues.