A comparative analysis between atraumatic and conventional anesthetic techniques in surgical removal of upper third molars.

Luís Pl Donato, M. M. Maciel, L. M. Maciel, L. Lopes, Alessandra de At Carvalho, Hugo Fl de Oliveira, H. Rebelo
{"title":"A comparative analysis between atraumatic and conventional anesthetic techniques in surgical removal of upper third molars.","authors":"Luís Pl Donato, M. M. Maciel, L. M. Maciel, L. Lopes, Alessandra de At Carvalho, Hugo Fl de Oliveira, H. Rebelo","doi":"10.54589/aol.33/3/216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pain control is essential in dental practice, and can be accomplished through various techniques. This study seeks to compare atraumatic and conventional anesthetic techniques, applied during surgeries to remove upper third molars. The endpoints evaluated were pain indices, patient satisfaction and anesthetic efficacy. A random parallel split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 14 patients. Group A received atraumatic anesthesia without a needle (Comfort-in®) and group B received conventional anesthesia by blocking the posterior superior alveolar nerve (PSAN) and Greater Palatine Nerve (GPN). A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain. A significantly (p<0.001) lower perception of pain was observed among individuals who received the atraumatic technique. In 71% of cases, it was necessary to supplement the anesthesia during the procedure. Even considering the need for additional anesthesia, the Comfort-in® technique was more accepted by patients with regard to pain perception than the conventional manual technique.","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.33/3/216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pain control is essential in dental practice, and can be accomplished through various techniques. This study seeks to compare atraumatic and conventional anesthetic techniques, applied during surgeries to remove upper third molars. The endpoints evaluated were pain indices, patient satisfaction and anesthetic efficacy. A random parallel split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 14 patients. Group A received atraumatic anesthesia without a needle (Comfort-in®) and group B received conventional anesthesia by blocking the posterior superior alveolar nerve (PSAN) and Greater Palatine Nerve (GPN). A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain. A significantly (p<0.001) lower perception of pain was observed among individuals who received the atraumatic technique. In 71% of cases, it was necessary to supplement the anesthesia during the procedure. Even considering the need for additional anesthesia, the Comfort-in® technique was more accepted by patients with regard to pain perception than the conventional manual technique.
非外伤性与常规麻醉方法在上三磨牙手术切除中的比较分析。
疼痛控制在牙科实践中是必不可少的,可以通过各种技术来实现。本研究旨在比较非创伤和传统的麻醉技术,应用于手术中去除上第三磨牙。评估的终点是疼痛指数、患者满意度和麻醉效果。对14例患者进行随机平行裂口临床试验。A组采用无针无伤性麻醉(Comfort-in®),B组采用阻断牙槽后上神经(PSAN)和腭大神经(GPN)的常规麻醉。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛。在接受非创伤性技术的个体中观察到明显(p<0.001)较低的疼痛感知。在71%的病例中,需要在手术过程中补充麻醉。即使考虑到需要额外的麻醉,Comfort-in®技术在疼痛感知方面比传统的手动技术更被患者接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信