Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2013
The effectiveness of an additional lingual infiltration in the pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth: a systematic review.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Dou Lei, Luo Jun, Yang Deqin, Wang Yunji
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effect of an additional lingual infiltration on the pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Prospective clinical trials were searched from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, SCI, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Papers that met the inclusion criteria were accepted. Data was extracted by two investigators using a designed extraction form. The anesthetic efficacy of an additional lingual infiltration on the pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth was analyzed.
RESULTS: Seven prospective randomized controlled trials were included. All subjects of these studies were volunteers with healthy pulps, without patients with pulpitis. Compared to buccal infiltration alone, an additional lingual infiltration following buccal infiltration is more likely to achieve a successful pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular incisor area, with a relative risk for success of 2.00 [1.08, 3.72] for 2% lidocaine and 1.32 [1.15, 1.51] for 4% articaine. For mandibular canines and premolars, the additional lingual infiltration following inferior alveolar nerve block did not enhance the anesthetic efficacy. In the mandibular molar area, no significant difference was found after an additional lingual infiltration with either 2% lidocaine or 4% articaine.
CONCLUSION: An additional lingual infiltration following buccal infiltration can enhance the anesthetic efficacy compared with buccal infiltration alone in the mandibular incisor area. For mandibular canines, premolars, and molars, an additional lingual infiltration is not recommended, since no data exist to support such usage. Lingual infiltration of articaine in the mandibular teeth with pulpitis should be studied further.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Prospective clinical trials were searched from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, SCI, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Papers that met the inclusion criteria were accepted. Data was extracted by two investigators using a designed extraction form. The anesthetic efficacy of an additional lingual infiltration on the pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth was analyzed.
RESULTS: Seven prospective randomized controlled trials were included. All subjects of these studies were volunteers with healthy pulps, without patients with pulpitis. Compared to buccal infiltration alone, an additional lingual infiltration following buccal infiltration is more likely to achieve a successful pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular incisor area, with a relative risk for success of 2.00 [1.08, 3.72] for 2% lidocaine and 1.32 [1.15, 1.51] for 4% articaine. For mandibular canines and premolars, the additional lingual infiltration following inferior alveolar nerve block did not enhance the anesthetic efficacy. In the mandibular molar area, no significant difference was found after an additional lingual infiltration with either 2% lidocaine or 4% articaine.
CONCLUSION: An additional lingual infiltration following buccal infiltration can enhance the anesthetic efficacy compared with buccal infiltration alone in the mandibular incisor area. For mandibular canines, premolars, and molars, an additional lingual infiltration is not recommended, since no data exist to support such usage. Lingual infiltration of articaine in the mandibular teeth with pulpitis should be studied further.