Journal of periodontology · 2010
Effect of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics on pain perception during scaling by ultrasonic or hand instruments: a masked randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Jae-Eun, Koh Sang-A, Kim Tae-Il, Seol Yang-Jo, Lee Yong-Moo, Ku Young, Rhyu In-Chul, Chung Chong-Pyoung, Koo Ki-Tae
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetic (EMLA) cream on pain perception during scaling and to compare the intensities of pain provoked by hand and ultrasonic instruments.
METHODS: Forty subjects with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were enrolled in the study. In this randomized, split-mouth, controlled, masked clinical trial, each of the four quadrants in subjects was randomly assigned to receive one of the following protocols: scaling with an ultrasonic scaler with or without the application of the EMLA cream or scaling with a Gracey curet with or without the application of the EMLA cream. Pain levels after each quadrant of scaling were assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) and verbal rating score (VRS; 0 to 4). All subjects were recalled to detect any complications after 24 hours.
RESULTS: The mean VAS and VRS when EMLA cream was applied (18.39 ± 14.47 mm and 0.95 ± 0.69) were significantly lower (P <0.001 for VAS and VRS) compared to when EMLA cream was not used (26.54 ± 16.46 mm and 1.30 ± 0.75). The mean VAS and VRS of the ultrasonic scaler group (20.43 ± 16.40 mm and 0.98 ± 0.76) were significantly lower (P = 0.024 for VAS; P = 0.003 for VRS) than those of the Gracey curet group (24.50 ± 15.17 mm and 1.28 ± 0.69). None of the subjects showed adverse effects after EMLA-cream application.
CONCLUSION: Although most patients experienced limited pain during scaling, a significant reduction of pain is achieved by using EMLA cream and ultrasonic scaler.
METHODS: Forty subjects with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were enrolled in the study. In this randomized, split-mouth, controlled, masked clinical trial, each of the four quadrants in subjects was randomly assigned to receive one of the following protocols: scaling with an ultrasonic scaler with or without the application of the EMLA cream or scaling with a Gracey curet with or without the application of the EMLA cream. Pain levels after each quadrant of scaling were assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) and verbal rating score (VRS; 0 to 4). All subjects were recalled to detect any complications after 24 hours.
RESULTS: The mean VAS and VRS when EMLA cream was applied (18.39 ± 14.47 mm and 0.95 ± 0.69) were significantly lower (P <0.001 for VAS and VRS) compared to when EMLA cream was not used (26.54 ± 16.46 mm and 1.30 ± 0.75). The mean VAS and VRS of the ultrasonic scaler group (20.43 ± 16.40 mm and 0.98 ± 0.76) were significantly lower (P = 0.024 for VAS; P = 0.003 for VRS) than those of the Gracey curet group (24.50 ± 15.17 mm and 1.28 ± 0.69). None of the subjects showed adverse effects after EMLA-cream application.
CONCLUSION: Although most patients experienced limited pain during scaling, a significant reduction of pain is achieved by using EMLA cream and ultrasonic scaler.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAnalysis of VarianceAnesthetics, CombinedAnesthetics, LocalDental InstrumentsDrug CombinationsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGingivitisHumansLidocaineLidocaine, Prilocaine Drug CombinationMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedPainPain PerceptionPeriodontitisPrilocaineRoot PlaningSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeUltrasonic TherapyYoung Adult