Articaine given only by buccal infiltration may not be as effective as lidocaine with standard infiltration and palatal injection for molar extractions. Participants were split into two groups: one group received single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine; the other received conventional buccal plus palatal infiltration with 2% lidocaine. Noninferiority could not be confirmed (p = 0.919) because the upper 95% CI exceeded the 1.5-cm margin, they wrote. Per-protocol analysis showed similar results, with a mean difference of 1.93 cm (95% CI, -0.01 to 3.87; p = 0.672). “Our findings do not support the use of buccal infiltration with 4% articaine only as a noninferior technique to conventional lidocaine infiltration with palatal injection in pediatric maxillary molar extractions,” they concluded.