All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .
Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare the reaction of children who received local anaesthesia with lidocaine 2 % with 1 : 100 000 epinephrine and articaine 4 % with 1 : 200 000 epinephrine and to assess the time of the onset , efficacy , duration of numbness of the soft tissues , children 's sensation after treatment to both anaesthetic solutions , as well as the occurrence of adverse events . SAMPLE S AND METHODS Sixty-two children ( 34 girls and 28 boys ) aged 5 - 13 years ( mean age 8.4 + /- 2.3 ) from two established paediatric dental clinics who needed similar operative procedures preceded by local anaesthesia were r and omly assigned to receive either lidocaine or articaine at their first or second visit . Modified Taddio 's behavioural pain scale was used to evaluate pain reaction during injection and treatment . The sensation after injection and treatment was evaluated using the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale . Parents recorded the time when the feeling of local anaesthesia in soft tissues disappeared . RESULTS Duration of numbness of soft tissues was significantly longer for articaine ( 3.43 + /- 0.7 h ) than for lidocaine ( 3.0 + /- 0.8 h ) ( P = 0.003 ) . No difference regarding the efficacy of the anaesthesia was observed . Reaction to pain was similar for both local anaesthetic solutions and no significant difference was found between genders . The efficacy of the anaesthesia was similar for both solutions . The feeling after treatment was similar for both solutions . The rate of adverse effects was similar for the two solutions . CONCLUSIONS Articaine 4 % with 1 : 200 000 epinephrine is as effective as lidocaine 2 % with 1 : 100 000 epinephrine . The effect of numbness of soft tissues was longer lasting with articaine than with lidocaine
All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .