Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine’s unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of conventional and rotary NiTi files for Gutta-Percha (GP) removal in straight roots during retreatment root canal treatment (RCT), using manual Hedstrom files and ProTaper Universal System, respectively. Methods: It was an in-vitro experimental study using non-probability consecutive sampling. Sixty extracted single rooted maxillary and mandibular permanent teeth with straight canals were selected for this study. Following preparation, the root canals were filled with GP along with a sealer and kept for two weeks in a moist environment at room temperature. Thirty teeth were randomly allocated to the study and control groups each. GP removal was accomplished with Hedstrom files and Pro Taper retreatment files in group 1 and group 2, respectively. Digital radiographs were obtained using Kodak RVG digital radiography system software version VER.6.10.8.3-A and analyzed for the difference of opacities indicating residual GP. AutoCAD 2006 software was used to outline the root canal and the residual root filling. Independent sample t test was used to compare the total residual GP in both groups. Results: No significant difference in the residual root filling was observed following removal with conventional Hedstrom files versus ProTaper universal retreatment files. In both groups, the residual GP was confined to the apical third of the roots. Conclusion: ProTaper Universal Retreatment files and manual Hedstrom files are equally effective in the removal of GP in straight canals.