Potocnik I, Tomsic M, Sketelj J, Bajrovic F F
Department of Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, University of Ljubljana, Dental School, Hrvatski trg 6,1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
J Dent Res. 2006 Feb;85(2):162-6. doi: 10.1177/154405910608500209.
The reasons for the relatively high failure rate after inferior alveolar nerve block in dentistry are not fully understood. Therefore, the effectiveness of different anesthetic solutions (2% and 4% lidocaine, 3% mepivacine, 2% and 4% articaine) in depressing the compound action potential amplitude of the sensory fibers in the rat sural nerve was examined under strictly controlled conditions in vitro. After application of an anesthetic solution and stimulation of the nerve with a supramaximal electrical stimulus, a complete disappearance of the compound action potential of the C fibers, but not of the A fibers, was observed in all the experimental groups. Both 2% and 4% articaine more effectively depressed the compound action potential of the A fibers than did other anesthetic solutions. These results are discussed in the light of recent clinical reports finding no differences in the effectiveness between 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine regarding the inferior alveolar nerve block.
牙科中下颌神经阻滞术后相对较高失败率的原因尚未完全明了。因此,在体外严格控制的条件下,研究了不同麻醉溶液(2%和4%利多卡因、3%甲哌卡因、2%和4%阿替卡因)对大鼠腓肠神经感觉纤维复合动作电位幅度的抑制效果。在应用麻醉溶液并用超强电刺激刺激神经后,所有实验组均观察到C纤维复合动作电位完全消失,但A纤维未消失。2%和4%阿替卡因比其他麻醉溶液更有效地抑制了A纤维的复合动作电位。根据最近的临床报告,在4%阿替卡因和2%利多卡因在下颌神经阻滞的有效性方面未发现差异,对这些结果进行了讨论。