Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2013
Infiltration anesthesia for extraction of the mandibular molars.
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.
El-Kholey Khalid E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Profound anesthesia for mandibular molars by buccal infiltration has been tried in recent years, with promising results. This prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study investigated the clinical anesthetic efficacy obtained with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus 4% articaine (A100) 1.8 versus 3.6 mL as mandibular first molar buccal infiltration during removal of impacted lower third molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty adult patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned impacted lower third molars in 2 separate appointments. The patients randomly received mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of A100 1.8 or 3.6 mL during surgery. For assessment of anesthetic efficacy, any pain during surgery was rated using the visual analog scale. Also, the onset, duration, and total amount of anesthetic used were recorded.
RESULTS: Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of A100, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (93% vs 56%).
CONCLUSIONS: Infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite the mandibular first molar by A100 3.6 mL may be a good option for extraction of mandibular third molars, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty adult patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned impacted lower third molars in 2 separate appointments. The patients randomly received mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of A100 1.8 or 3.6 mL during surgery. For assessment of anesthetic efficacy, any pain during surgery was rated using the visual analog scale. Also, the onset, duration, and total amount of anesthetic used were recorded.
RESULTS: Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of A100, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (93% vs 56%).
CONCLUSIONS: Infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite the mandibular first molar by A100 3.6 mL may be a good option for extraction of mandibular third molars, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.