Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of articaine or lidocaine in buccal infiltration or palatal infiltration in addition to buccal infiltration in maxillary first or second molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Method: Among the patients who applied to Akdeniz University Faculty of Dentistry Endodontic Clinic for the treatment of maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis, 80 volunteers who met the criteria were included in the study. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups (n = 20). 1. group buccal infiltration with 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2. group buccal infiltration with 2% lidocaine containing 80,000 epinephrine, 3. group buccal and palatinal infiltration with 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4.group buccal and palatinal infiltration with 2% lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic procedure was determined and recorded according to the Heft Parker visual analog scale.

Inclusion Criteria:

1. The patient must be a healthy individual between the ages of 18 and 65 who is classified as ASA I and II.
2. No allergy to local anesthetic substances to be used in the study
3. Upper maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis whose vitality has been proven by pulp tests, with no radiolucency at the root tip
4. Not having used any painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants and sedative drugs in the last 12 hours
5. Being capable of understanding the Pain scale

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Allergy to local anesthetics
2. Failure to respond to the cold test and electric pulp test performed on the relevant tooth
3. Radiolucent lesion in the apical part of the relevant tooth on periapical radiography
4. No vital tissue is encountered when the pulp chamber is opened