Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2017
Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Efficacy of 2% Lidocaine, 4% Articaine, and 0.5% Bupivacaine on Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial.
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.
Aggarwal Vivek, Singla Mamta, Miglani Sanjay
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine on producing inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: A total of 91 adult patients who were actively experiencing mandibular molar pain were involved in this study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups on the basis of the anesthetic solution used. The first group received IANB with 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, the second group received IANB with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and the third group received IANB with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. After 15 minutes of IANB, conventional endodontic access preparation was started. The pain during the treatment was noted on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS). The primary outcome measure was anesthetic success, and anesthesia was considered successful if the patient reported no pain or weak/mild pain (HP VAS score < 55 mm) during endodontic treatment (pulp access and canal preparation procedures). The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and chi-square test.
RESULTS: The anesthetic success rates of 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, and 0.5% bupivacaine were 23%, 33%, and 17%, respectively. The differences were statistically insignificant (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: The 2% lidocaine solution used for IANB had similar success rates when compared with 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine.
METHODS: A total of 91 adult patients who were actively experiencing mandibular molar pain were involved in this study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups on the basis of the anesthetic solution used. The first group received IANB with 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, the second group received IANB with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and the third group received IANB with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. After 15 minutes of IANB, conventional endodontic access preparation was started. The pain during the treatment was noted on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS). The primary outcome measure was anesthetic success, and anesthesia was considered successful if the patient reported no pain or weak/mild pain (HP VAS score < 55 mm) during endodontic treatment (pulp access and canal preparation procedures). The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and chi-square test.
RESULTS: The anesthetic success rates of 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, and 0.5% bupivacaine were 23%, 33%, and 17%, respectively. The differences were statistically insignificant (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: The 2% lidocaine solution used for IANB had similar success rates when compared with 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine.