{"title":"无针麻醉与常规麻醉在恒牙根管治疗不可逆性牙髓炎中的应用:麻醉疗效及对疼痛影响的前瞻性研究。","authors":"Suhui Qian, Ziying Meng, Haiyan Zhang, Kaicheng Li, Fei Zhang, Sen Zhang, Jianfei Liu, Zhou Zhou","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S514944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of articaine needle-free anesthesia with conventional lidocaine nerve block anesthesia for root canal treatment in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective clinical trial, 94 patients were randomly allocated to receive either articaine needle-free anesthesia (n=47) or lidocaine nerve block anesthesia (n=47). Anesthetic effectiveness was evaluated through onset time, success rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during crown opening and pulp removal procedures. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic stability (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and incidence of adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The articaine group exhibited significantly faster anesthesia onset (7.62±1.28 minutes vs 9.35±2.04 minutes, p<0.05) and higher success rate (93.62% vs 80.85%, p<0.05). Patients receiving articaine reported significantly lower pain scores during crown opening (4.31±1.13 vs 5.48±1.06) and pulp removal (3.18±1.07 vs 4.26±1.12) (both p<0.05). Both groups maintained comparable hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure (p>0.05), with no significant difference in adverse reaction rates (11.49% vs 10.64%, p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Articaine needle-free anesthesia demonstrates superior clinical performance compared to conventional lidocaine nerve block, offering faster onset, improved success rate, and enhanced pain control during root canal treatment of irreversible pulpitis, while maintaining equivalent safety parameters. These findings support its adoption as an effective alternative for dental anesthesia in endodontic procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"2115-2125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12024466/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Articaine Needle - Free Anesthesia Vs Conventional Anesthesia in Root Canal Treatment of Irreversible Pulpitis in Permanent Teeth: A Prospective Study on Anesthetic Efficacy and Effects on Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Suhui Qian, Ziying Meng, Haiyan Zhang, Kaicheng Li, Fei Zhang, Sen Zhang, Jianfei Liu, Zhou Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S514944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of articaine needle-free anesthesia with conventional lidocaine nerve block anesthesia for root canal treatment in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective clinical trial, 94 patients were randomly allocated to receive either articaine needle-free anesthesia (n=47) or lidocaine nerve block anesthesia (n=47). Anesthetic effectiveness was evaluated through onset time, success rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during crown opening and pulp removal procedures. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic stability (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and incidence of adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The articaine group exhibited significantly faster anesthesia onset (7.62±1.28 minutes vs 9.35±2.04 minutes, p<0.05) and higher success rate (93.62% vs 80.85%, p<0.05). Patients receiving articaine reported significantly lower pain scores during crown opening (4.31±1.13 vs 5.48±1.06) and pulp removal (3.18±1.07 vs 4.26±1.12) (both p<0.05). Both groups maintained comparable hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure (p>0.05), with no significant difference in adverse reaction rates (11.49% vs 10.64%, p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Articaine needle-free anesthesia demonstrates superior clinical performance compared to conventional lidocaine nerve block, offering faster onset, improved success rate, and enhanced pain control during root canal treatment of irreversible pulpitis, while maintaining equivalent safety parameters. These findings support its adoption as an effective alternative for dental anesthesia in endodontic procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"2115-2125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12024466/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S514944\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S514944","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较阿卡因无针麻醉与传统利多卡因神经阻滞麻醉在不可逆性牙髓炎恒牙根管治疗中的麻醉效果。方法:在本前瞻性临床试验中,94例患者随机分配接受阿卡因无针麻醉(n=47)和利多卡因神经阻滞麻醉(n=47)。通过冠脉打开和脱牙过程中的起效时间、成功率和视觉模拟评分(VAS)来评估麻醉效果。次要结局包括血流动力学稳定性(心率、收缩压和舒张压)和不良反应发生率。结果:阿替卡因组麻醉起效时间明显加快(7.62±1.28 min vs 9.35±2.04 min, p < 0.05),不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(11.49% vs 10.64%, p < 0.05)。结论:与传统的利多卡因神经阻滞相比,阿替卡因无针麻醉在不可逆性牙髓炎根管治疗中具有更优的临床性能,起效更快,成功率更高,疼痛控制更强,同时保持相同的安全性参数。这些发现支持其作为牙髓治疗过程中牙麻醉的有效替代。
Articaine Needle - Free Anesthesia Vs Conventional Anesthesia in Root Canal Treatment of Irreversible Pulpitis in Permanent Teeth: A Prospective Study on Anesthetic Efficacy and Effects on Pain.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of articaine needle-free anesthesia with conventional lidocaine nerve block anesthesia for root canal treatment in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
Methods: In this prospective clinical trial, 94 patients were randomly allocated to receive either articaine needle-free anesthesia (n=47) or lidocaine nerve block anesthesia (n=47). Anesthetic effectiveness was evaluated through onset time, success rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during crown opening and pulp removal procedures. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic stability (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and incidence of adverse reactions.
Results: The articaine group exhibited significantly faster anesthesia onset (7.62±1.28 minutes vs 9.35±2.04 minutes, p<0.05) and higher success rate (93.62% vs 80.85%, p<0.05). Patients receiving articaine reported significantly lower pain scores during crown opening (4.31±1.13 vs 5.48±1.06) and pulp removal (3.18±1.07 vs 4.26±1.12) (both p<0.05). Both groups maintained comparable hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure (p>0.05), with no significant difference in adverse reaction rates (11.49% vs 10.64%, p>0.05).
Conclusion: Articaine needle-free anesthesia demonstrates superior clinical performance compared to conventional lidocaine nerve block, offering faster onset, improved success rate, and enhanced pain control during root canal treatment of irreversible pulpitis, while maintaining equivalent safety parameters. These findings support its adoption as an effective alternative for dental anesthesia in endodontic procedures.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.