BMC oral health · 2025
Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and articaine used for buccal infiltration and supplemental palatinal infiltration anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Kolay Duygu, Kırıcı Damla
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency of buccal infiltration versus combination of buccal and palatal infiltration to anesthetize maxillary molars with symptomaticirreversible pulpitis, wither lidocaine or articaine are used.
MATERIAL-METHODS: This randomized clinical study was conducted on 80 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first and second molars. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups (n = 20). (1) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, (2) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80,000 epinephrine, (3) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4.group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine. The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) before injection, during access cavity preparation and access palatal canal. The data were analyzed by the chi-square and The Kruskal-Wallis tests.
RESULTS: Within the results of the study, no statistically significant difference was found between 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine in terms of anesthesia effectiveness (p > 0.05). When palatal infiltration anesthesia was applied in addition to buccal infiltration, the pain during entry into the palatal canals was significantly reduced compared to buccal infiltration anesthesia alone (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, it may be recommended to use palatal infiltration anesthesia in addition to buccal infiltration anesthesia, independent of the anesthetic solution, for an effective pulpal anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number is "NCT06342869" and date of registration is 2024-04-02.Retrospectively registered.
MATERIAL-METHODS: This randomized clinical study was conducted on 80 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first and second molars. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups (n = 20). (1) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, (2) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80,000 epinephrine, (3) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4.group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine. The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) before injection, during access cavity preparation and access palatal canal. The data were analyzed by the chi-square and The Kruskal-Wallis tests.
RESULTS: Within the results of the study, no statistically significant difference was found between 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine in terms of anesthesia effectiveness (p > 0.05). When palatal infiltration anesthesia was applied in addition to buccal infiltration, the pain during entry into the palatal canals was significantly reduced compared to buccal infiltration anesthesia alone (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, it may be recommended to use palatal infiltration anesthesia in addition to buccal infiltration anesthesia, independent of the anesthetic solution, for an effective pulpal anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number is "NCT06342869" and date of registration is 2024-04-02.Retrospectively registered.