不可逆性牙髓炎患者下颌第一磨牙和第二磨牙补充口腔浸润与韧带内注射的麻醉效果:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。

Nazanin Zargar, Shiva Shojaeian, Mohammadreza Vatankhah, Shirin Heidaryan, Hengameh Ashraf, Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban, Omid Dianat
{"title":"不可逆性牙髓炎患者下颌第一磨牙和第二磨牙补充口腔浸润与韧带内注射的麻醉效果:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。","authors":"Nazanin Zargar,&nbsp;Shiva Shojaeian,&nbsp;Mohammadreza Vatankhah,&nbsp;Shirin Heidaryan,&nbsp;Hengameh Ashraf,&nbsp;Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban,&nbsp;Omid Dianat","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.</p>","PeriodicalId":15634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"339-348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/07/0e/jdapm-22-339.PMC9536943.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Nazanin Zargar,&nbsp;Shiva Shojaeian,&nbsp;Mohammadreza Vatankhah,&nbsp;Shirin Heidaryan,&nbsp;Hengameh Ashraf,&nbsp;Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban,&nbsp;Omid Dianat\",\"doi\":\"10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"339-348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/07/0e/jdapm-22-339.PMC9536943.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:比较对诊断为不可逆性牙髓炎(IP)的第一、第二下颌磨牙行下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)后用2%利多卡因(1.7 ml)加4%阿替卡因(0.4 ml)与1:10万肾上腺素的韧带内注射(IL)的麻醉效果。方法:选择100例诊断为下颌第一磨牙(n = 50)或第二磨牙(n = 50)的患者,并在IANB后深度麻醉失败。他们随机接受IL或BI麻醉技术。用170 mm Heft-Parker视觉模拟量表记录初始、注射前和补充注射期间的疼痛评分。此外,在每次补充注射前后测量脉搏率。在通道腔准备和初始锉制过程中,没有或轻微的疼痛被认为是麻醉成功的标志。采用卡方检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和独立样本t检验进行分析。结果:IL组总成功率为80%,BI组总成功率为74%,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.63)。在第一磨牙上,两种方法无显著性差异(P = 0.088)。第二磨牙注射IL的成功率显著高于BI (P = 0.017)。第二磨牙注射IL成功率(92%)高于第一磨牙(68%)(P = 0.034)。然而,第一磨牙的BI成功率(88%)明显高于第二磨牙(64%)(P = 0.047)。IL组平均脉率升高明显高于BI组(P < 0.001)。结论:IL和BI技术作为补充注射剂均具有优势。然而,当第二磨牙注射IL和第一磨牙注射BI时,观察到更有利的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP).

Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses.

Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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