Prohić Samir, Sulejmanagić Halid, Secić Sadeta
Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, Bolnicka 4a, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2005 Feb;5(1):57-60. doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2005.3336.
It is a well-known scientific fact that only a small percentage of infiltration of inferior alveolar nerve is clinically proven to be efficient. The objective of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental intraosseous injection, used after the insufficient classical mandibular block that didn't provide deep pulp anesthesia of mandibular molar planed for extraction. The experimental teeth consisted of 98 mandibular molars with clinical indication for extraction. Based on the history of disease, we indicated the extraction of the tooth. After that each tooth was tested with a electric pulp tester P1. We tested the pulp vitality and precisely determined the level of vitality. After that, each patient received classical mandibular block, and the pulp vitality was tested again. If the pulp tester indicated negative vitality for the certain mandibular molar, and the patient didn't complain about pain or discomfort during the extraction, the molar was extracted and the result was added to anesthetic success rate for the classical mandibular block. If, five minutes after receiving the mandibular block, the pulp tester indicated positive vitality (parameters of vitality) or the patient complained about pain or discomfort (parameters of pain and discomfort), we used the Stabident intraosseous anesthesia system. Three minutes after the application of supplemental intraosseous injection the molar was tested with the pulp tester again. The anesthetic solution used in both anesthetic techniques is lidocaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine. The results of this study indicate that the anesthetic efficacy of the mandibular block is 74.5%, and that supplemental intraosseous anesthesia, applied after the insufficient mandibular block, provides pulpal anesthesia in 94.9% of mandibular molars. The difference between anesthetic efficacy of the classical mandibular block and anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous anesthesia, applied after the insufficient mandibular block, is obvious.
众所周知,科学事实表明,临床上仅证实一小部分下牙槽神经浸润有效。本研究的目的是确定在经典下颌阻滞麻醉不足、未对计划拔除的下颌磨牙提供深层牙髓麻醉后使用的补充骨内注射的麻醉效果。实验牙齿包括98颗有临床拔牙指征的下颌磨牙。根据疾病史,我们确定了拔牙对象。之后,每颗牙齿用牙髓电活力测试仪P1进行测试。我们测试了牙髓活力并精确确定了活力水平。之后,每位患者接受经典下颌阻滞麻醉,然后再次测试牙髓活力。如果牙髓测试仪显示某颗下颌磨牙活力为阴性,且患者在拔牙过程中未抱怨疼痛或不适,则拔除该磨牙,并将结果计入经典下颌阻滞麻醉的成功率。如果在接受下颌阻滞麻醉五分钟后,牙髓测试仪显示活力为阳性(活力参数)或患者抱怨疼痛或不适(疼痛和不适参数),我们使用Stabident骨内麻醉系统。补充骨内注射应用三分钟后,再次用牙髓测试仪测试磨牙。两种麻醉技术中使用的麻醉溶液均为含1:100000肾上腺素的利多卡因。本研究结果表明,下颌阻滞麻醉的有效率为74.5%,在下颌阻滞麻醉不足后应用补充骨内麻醉,可使94.9%的下颌磨牙获得牙髓麻醉。经典下颌阻滞麻醉与下颌阻滞麻醉不足后应用补充骨内麻醉的麻醉效果差异明显。