Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2020
Observational study of adverse reactions related to articaine and lidocaine.
СтатьяНаблюдательное 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.
Yamashita Isabela Chiguti, Yamashita Fernanda Chiguti, Yamashita Amanda Lury, Guimarães Jackeline Coutinho, Peixoto Isabel de Freitas, Bispo Carina Gisele Costa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study determined the frequency of adverse reactions related to the administration of local dental anesthesia with 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine, both associated with epinephrine 1:100,000. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the administrations of both dental local anesthesia.
METHODS: From a total of 727 patients in an emergency service, 338 and 389 patients were subjected to local anesthesia with lidocaine and articaine, respectively. A questionnaire was completed for each patient that contained patient data, the local anesthesia applied, and any reactions.
RESULTS: The overall frequency of adverse reactions was 3.71%, with sweating and pallor being the most frequently observed. There was an association between adverse reactions and the use of daily medication by patients anesthetized with articaine (p = 0.0266). In contrast, in patients anesthetized with lidocaine, there was an association among the duration of the procedure (p = 0.0423), the type of procedure (p = 0.0146), and first anesthesia exposure (p = 0.0448).
CONCLUSIONS: The low frequency of adverse reactions with use of articaine and lidocaine led to the conclusion that both solutions are safe for use in dentistry.
METHODS: From a total of 727 patients in an emergency service, 338 and 389 patients were subjected to local anesthesia with lidocaine and articaine, respectively. A questionnaire was completed for each patient that contained patient data, the local anesthesia applied, and any reactions.
RESULTS: The overall frequency of adverse reactions was 3.71%, with sweating and pallor being the most frequently observed. There was an association between adverse reactions and the use of daily medication by patients anesthetized with articaine (p = 0.0266). In contrast, in patients anesthetized with lidocaine, there was an association among the duration of the procedure (p = 0.0423), the type of procedure (p = 0.0146), and first anesthesia exposure (p = 0.0448).
CONCLUSIONS: The low frequency of adverse reactions with use of articaine and lidocaine led to the conclusion that both solutions are safe for use in dentistry.