Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2008
Comparison of the efficiencies of permanent maxillary tooth removal performed with single buccal infiltration versus routine buccal and palatal injection.
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.
Fan Song, Chen Wei-liang, Yang Zhao-hui, Huang Zhi-quan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate whether articaine/HCl administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal provided favorable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection, for a surgical procedure.
STUDY DESIGN: In total, 71 patients for removal of bilateral permanent maxillary teeth were enrolled in the present study. For the experimental side, 1.7 mL of 4% articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. After 5 minutes, tooth extraction was performed. On the control side a similar protocol was applied with the addition of a palatal injection. All patients completed a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Response Scale (VRS) after both injection and then extraction, respectively.
RESULTS: According to the VAS scores, the pain of injection between buccal infiltration without a separate palatal injection and routine administration with additional palatal injection was statistically significant (P < .05). However, the VAS scores for permanent maxillary tooth removal showed no significant difference between the 2 types of injection (P > .05). All patients described both extractions as "acceptable" and no patient requested an additional palatal injection to ensure comfortable extraction.
CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.
STUDY DESIGN: In total, 71 patients for removal of bilateral permanent maxillary teeth were enrolled in the present study. For the experimental side, 1.7 mL of 4% articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. After 5 minutes, tooth extraction was performed. On the control side a similar protocol was applied with the addition of a palatal injection. All patients completed a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Response Scale (VRS) after both injection and then extraction, respectively.
RESULTS: According to the VAS scores, the pain of injection between buccal infiltration without a separate palatal injection and routine administration with additional palatal injection was statistically significant (P < .05). However, the VAS scores for permanent maxillary tooth removal showed no significant difference between the 2 types of injection (P > .05). All patients described both extractions as "acceptable" and no patient requested an additional palatal injection to ensure comfortable extraction.
CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.