Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2009
Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Srinivasan Narasimhan, Kavitha Mahendran, Loganathan Chandarasekaran S, Padmini Govindasamy
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) for buccal infiltration in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in maxillary posterior teeth.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with irreversible pulpitis in first premolar or first molar were divided into 4 study groups and received buccal infiltration of either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine in a double-blind manner. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as no or mild discomfort (VAS recordings) during the endodontic procedure.
RESULTS: The success rate for maxillary buccal infiltration to produce pulpal anesthesia using articaine was 100% in first premolar and first molar, and for the lidocaine solution, success rate was 80% in first premolar and 30% in first molar. There was high significant difference between the articaine and lidocaine solutions (ANOVA; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine was superior to 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in posterior teeth.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with irreversible pulpitis in first premolar or first molar were divided into 4 study groups and received buccal infiltration of either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine in a double-blind manner. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as no or mild discomfort (VAS recordings) during the endodontic procedure.
RESULTS: The success rate for maxillary buccal infiltration to produce pulpal anesthesia using articaine was 100% in first premolar and first molar, and for the lidocaine solution, success rate was 80% in first premolar and 30% in first molar. There was high significant difference between the articaine and lidocaine solutions (ANOVA; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine was superior to 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in posterior teeth.