Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2023
Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gülnahar Y, Alpan A-L, Gülnahar E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine on inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for implant surgery in the posterior mandible.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patients who have inserted implants in the posterior mandible were divided into 2 groups for IANB: lidocaine and articaine. VAS = visual analog scale, pain during surgery and injection, lip numbness time, mandibular canal-implant apex distance, age, gender, bone density, implant number, release incision, adjacent teeth, and duration of surgery were analyzed using t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's coefficient, and, Pearson's chi-squared test. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: 577 patients were included and 1185 dental implants were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of injection and surgery VAS values (p>0.05). The lip numbness time of lidocaine was 3.06±3.22min while articaine was found to be 2.96±3.09min (p>0.05). Mandibular canal-implant apex distance was found to be 2.28±0.75mm in the articaine and 2.45±0.86mm in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). Release incision was made more in the articaine group (51/252) than in the lidocaine group (40/325) (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine in terms of pain perception in posterior mandible implant applications. Both anesthetics provided adequate anesthesia for implant application.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patients who have inserted implants in the posterior mandible were divided into 2 groups for IANB: lidocaine and articaine. VAS = visual analog scale, pain during surgery and injection, lip numbness time, mandibular canal-implant apex distance, age, gender, bone density, implant number, release incision, adjacent teeth, and duration of surgery were analyzed using t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's coefficient, and, Pearson's chi-squared test. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: 577 patients were included and 1185 dental implants were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of injection and surgery VAS values (p>0.05). The lip numbness time of lidocaine was 3.06±3.22min while articaine was found to be 2.96±3.09min (p>0.05). Mandibular canal-implant apex distance was found to be 2.28±0.75mm in the articaine and 2.45±0.86mm in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). Release incision was made more in the articaine group (51/252) than in the lidocaine group (40/325) (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine in terms of pain perception in posterior mandible implant applications. Both anesthetics provided adequate anesthesia for implant application.