Journal of endodontics · 2016
Comparative Evaluation of Mental Incisal Nerve Block, Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block, and Their Combination on the Anesthetic Success Rate in Symptomatic Mandibular Premolars: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical 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.
Aggarwal Vivek, Singla Mamta, Miglani Sanjay, Kohli Sarita
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of mental incisive nerve block (MINB) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) that were given alone or in combination to provide anesthesia to symptomatic mandibular premolars.
METHODS: One hundred fifty-three patients participated in this randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The patients were divided into 3 groups; first group received MINB with 2 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and a mock IANB with 2 mL sterile saline, patients in group 2 received mock MINB and an IANB with 2 mL 2% lidocaine, and patients in group 3 received both MINB and IANB with 2 mL each of 2% lidocaine. Access cavity preparation was initiated after 10 minutes. Success was defined as no pain or faint/weak/mild pain during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed with Pearson χ(2) test at 5% significance levels.
RESULTS: The MINB and IANB gave 53% and 47% anesthetic success rates, respectively, with no significant difference between them. Adding an IANB to MINB significantly improved the success rates to 82%.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of MINB and IANB can provide improved local anesthesia for symptomatic mandibular premolars.
METHODS: One hundred fifty-three patients participated in this randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The patients were divided into 3 groups; first group received MINB with 2 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and a mock IANB with 2 mL sterile saline, patients in group 2 received mock MINB and an IANB with 2 mL 2% lidocaine, and patients in group 3 received both MINB and IANB with 2 mL each of 2% lidocaine. Access cavity preparation was initiated after 10 minutes. Success was defined as no pain or faint/weak/mild pain during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed with Pearson χ(2) test at 5% significance levels.
RESULTS: The MINB and IANB gave 53% and 47% anesthetic success rates, respectively, with no significant difference between them. Adding an IANB to MINB significantly improved the success rates to 82%.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of MINB and IANB can provide improved local anesthesia for symptomatic mandibular premolars.