International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology
Volume 16, Issue 3s, 2026

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Topical Lidocaine Spray, Tetrafluoroethane Spray and Orachill Before Intraoral Local Anesthesia – A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Dr. Akriti Chauhan 1, Dr. Shalu Majreti 2, Dr. Mahema Sharma 3, Dr. Shruti Verma 4, Dr. Rahul Pandey 5, Dr. Avantika Tuli 6

1Senior Resident, Government Medical College, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.
Email: chauhanakri1994@gmail.com

2Senior Resident, Government Medical College and Hospital, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, India.
Email: majretishalu22@gmail.com

3Private Practitioner.
Email: mahemasharma93@gmail.com

4Consultant Pedodontist, ITS Dental College and Hospital, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Email: verma.drshruti03@gmail.com

5Private Practice/Clinician, Malviya Dental Home, Malviya Nagar, Delhi - 110017, India.
Email: drrahulpandey94@gmail.com

6Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Santosh Dental College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Email: avantikatuli@gmail.com


ABSTRACT

Topical and local anesthesia is the cornerstone of treatment in modern-day dentistry.

Background: Local anesthetics, one of the most used drugs to avert and manage pain, are associated with pain resulting from the situation's irony. Efforts are made to reduce this pain perception of injection. Along with lidocaine as topical anesthesia, cryoanesthesia has also reduced injection pain.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine spray, tetrafluoroethane spray, and orachill mouthpiece concerning discomfort during needle insertion in pediatric patients for various dental procedures measured by Sound, Eye & Motor scale (SEM) (objective method), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (subjective method), and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating scale (WBFPRS) (subjective method) pain scales.

Study Design: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 90 patients between the age group of 5 and 12 years were selected and randomly divided into three equal groups with 30 patients in each group. The three groups into which the study sample was divided were: Group 1 (lidocaine spray), Group 2 (tetrafluoroethane spray), and Group 3 (orachill group).

Results: The mean SEM scores for sound were 1.23±0.89; 0.93±0.64; 0.90±0.71 for lidocaine spray, tetrafluoroethane spray, and orachill group, respectively. The mean scores for the eye were 1.23±1.00; 0.87±0.68; 0.73±0.69 for lidocaine spray, tetrafluoroethane spray, and orachill group, respectively. The mean scores for the motor score were 1.20±0.76; 0.73±0.64; 0.97±0.67 for lidocaine spray, tetrafluoroethane spray, and orachill group, respectively. The mean WBFPS scores were found to be highest in Group 1 (3.80±1.42), followed by Group 2 (3.47±1.57), and the scores were lowest in Group 3 (2.53±1.66). The mean VAS scores were found to be highest in Group 1 (3.87±1.78), followed by Group 2 (3.23±1.22), and the scores were lowest in Group 3 (2.20±1.49).

Conclusion: The efficacy of the Orachill mouthpiece proved to be superior in comparison to lidocaine spray as a topical anesthetic agent. The Orachill mouthpiece was comparable in efficacy to Tetrafluoroethane as a topical anesthetic agent.

Keywords: Topical anesthesia, lidocaine, cryoanesthesia, pain perception.

How to cite this article: Chauhan A, Majreti S, Sharma M, Verma S, Pandey R, Tuli A. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of topical lidocaine spray, tetrafluoroethane spray and orachill before intraoral local anesthesia – a double blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(3s): 973-977; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.3s.117

Source of support: None.

Conflict of interest: None