R. Pol, T. Ruggiero, M. Bezzi, D. Camisassa, S. Carossa
{"title":"程序释放骨内麻醉作为下第三磨牙拔除中下牙槽神经阻滞的替代方法:一项随机临床试验","authors":"R. Pol, T. Ruggiero, M. Bezzi, D. Camisassa, S. Carossa","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.3.217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Intraosseous anesthesia is the process by which an anesthetic solution, after penetration of the cortical bone, is directly injected into the spongiosa of the alveolar bone supporting the tooth. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the traditional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and computerized intraosseous anesthesia in the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars, compare their side effects systemically by monitoring heart rate, and assess patients’ a posteriori preference of one technique over the other. Methods Thirty-nine patients with bilaterally impacted third molars participated in this study. Each patient in the sample was both a case and control, where the conventional technique was randomly assigned to one side (group 1) and the alternative method to the contralateral side (group 2). Results The traditional technique was faster in execution than anesthesia delivered via electronic syringe, which took 3 min to be administered. However, it was necessary to wait for an average of 6 ± 4 min from the execution to achieve the onset of IANB, while the latency of intraosseous anesthesia was zero. Vincent's sign and lingual nerve anesthesia occurred in 100% of cases in group 1. In group 2, Vincent’s sign was recorded in 13% of cases and lingual anesthesia in four cases. The average duration of the perceived anesthetic effect was 192 ± 68 min in group 1 and 127 ± 75 min in group 2 (P < 0.001). The difference between the heart rate of group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant. During infiltration in group 1, heartbeat frequency increased by 5 ± 13 beats per minute, while in group 2, it increased by 22 ± 10 beats per minute (P < 0.001). No postoperative complications were reported for either technique. Patients showed a preference of 67% for the alternative technique and 20% for the traditional, and 13% of patients were indifferent. Conclusion The results identified intraosseous anesthesia as a valid alternative to conventional anesthesia in impacted lower third molar extraction.","PeriodicalId":15634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":"9 1","pages":"217 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Programmed-release intraosseus anesthesia as an alternative to lower alveolar nerve block in lower third molar extraction: a randomized clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"R. Pol, T. Ruggiero, M. Bezzi, D. Camisassa, S. Carossa\",\"doi\":\"10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.3.217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Intraosseous anesthesia is the process by which an anesthetic solution, after penetration of the cortical bone, is directly injected into the spongiosa of the alveolar bone supporting the tooth. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the traditional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and computerized intraosseous anesthesia in the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars, compare their side effects systemically by monitoring heart rate, and assess patients’ a posteriori preference of one technique over the other. Methods Thirty-nine patients with bilaterally impacted third molars participated in this study. Each patient in the sample was both a case and control, where the conventional technique was randomly assigned to one side (group 1) and the alternative method to the contralateral side (group 2). Results The traditional technique was faster in execution than anesthesia delivered via electronic syringe, which took 3 min to be administered. However, it was necessary to wait for an average of 6 ± 4 min from the execution to achieve the onset of IANB, while the latency of intraosseous anesthesia was zero. Vincent's sign and lingual nerve anesthesia occurred in 100% of cases in group 1. In group 2, Vincent’s sign was recorded in 13% of cases and lingual anesthesia in four cases. The average duration of the perceived anesthetic effect was 192 ± 68 min in group 1 and 127 ± 75 min in group 2 (P < 0.001). The difference between the heart rate of group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant. During infiltration in group 1, heartbeat frequency increased by 5 ± 13 beats per minute, while in group 2, it increased by 22 ± 10 beats per minute (P < 0.001). No postoperative complications were reported for either technique. Patients showed a preference of 67% for the alternative technique and 20% for the traditional, and 13% of patients were indifferent. Conclusion The results identified intraosseous anesthesia as a valid alternative to conventional anesthesia in impacted lower third molar extraction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"217 - 226\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"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.2022.22.3.217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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.2022.22.3.217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:骨内麻醉是麻醉溶液穿透皮质骨后,直接注射到支撑牙齿的牙槽骨的海绵中。本研究旨在比较传统的下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)和计算机化骨内麻醉在手术拔除阻生下第三磨牙的有效性,通过监测心率系统地比较它们的副作用,并评估患者对一种技术的后显偏好。方法对39例双侧阻生第三磨牙患者进行研究。每例患者均为病例和对照组,其中常规方法随机分配到一侧(1组),替代方法随机分配到对侧(2组)。结果传统方法比电子注射器麻醉执行速度快,给药时间为3 min。然而,从执行到实现IANB的平均等待时间为6±4 min,而骨内麻醉的潜伏期为零。第1组100%的病例出现文森特氏征和舌神经麻醉。2组有13%的患者出现文森特征,4例患者出现舌麻醉。麻醉效果感知平均持续时间1组为192±68 min, 2组为127±75 min (P < 0.001)。1组与2组心率差异有统计学意义。浸润过程中,1组心跳频率增加5±13次/ min, 2组心跳频率增加22±10次/ min (P < 0.001)。两种技术均无术后并发症报道。67%的患者偏爱替代技术,20%的患者偏爱传统技术,13%的患者无所谓。结论骨内麻醉是常规麻醉的有效替代方法。
Programmed-release intraosseus anesthesia as an alternative to lower alveolar nerve block in lower third molar extraction: a randomized clinical trial
Background Intraosseous anesthesia is the process by which an anesthetic solution, after penetration of the cortical bone, is directly injected into the spongiosa of the alveolar bone supporting the tooth. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the traditional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and computerized intraosseous anesthesia in the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars, compare their side effects systemically by monitoring heart rate, and assess patients’ a posteriori preference of one technique over the other. Methods Thirty-nine patients with bilaterally impacted third molars participated in this study. Each patient in the sample was both a case and control, where the conventional technique was randomly assigned to one side (group 1) and the alternative method to the contralateral side (group 2). Results The traditional technique was faster in execution than anesthesia delivered via electronic syringe, which took 3 min to be administered. However, it was necessary to wait for an average of 6 ± 4 min from the execution to achieve the onset of IANB, while the latency of intraosseous anesthesia was zero. Vincent's sign and lingual nerve anesthesia occurred in 100% of cases in group 1. In group 2, Vincent’s sign was recorded in 13% of cases and lingual anesthesia in four cases. The average duration of the perceived anesthetic effect was 192 ± 68 min in group 1 and 127 ± 75 min in group 2 (P < 0.001). The difference between the heart rate of group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant. During infiltration in group 1, heartbeat frequency increased by 5 ± 13 beats per minute, while in group 2, it increased by 22 ± 10 beats per minute (P < 0.001). No postoperative complications were reported for either technique. Patients showed a preference of 67% for the alternative technique and 20% for the traditional, and 13% of patients were indifferent. Conclusion The results identified intraosseous anesthesia as a valid alternative to conventional anesthesia in impacted lower third molar extraction.