Suppr超能文献

使用标准化方案对比Gow-Gates下颌阻滞麻醉和下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉。

Comparison of the Gow-Gates mandibular block and inferior alveolar nerve block using a standardized protocol.

作者信息

Hung Pei-Chuan, Chang Hao-Hueng, Yang Puo-Jen, Kuo Ying-Shiung, Lan Wan-Hon, Lin Chun-Pin

机构信息

School of Dentistry, National Taiwan University and National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

出版信息

J Formos Med Assoc. 2006 Feb;105(2):139-46. doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60335-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although several previous studies have compared the efficacy of Gow-Gates mandibular block (GGMB) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), the results remain controversial. This study used an objective, standardized and precise protocol to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and success rate of GGMB and IANB.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 162 patients (93 males and 69 females) who were randomly allocated to receive GGMB or IANB for extraction of third molars. Both methods used 2.7 mL of 2% xylocaine for each patient. Pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia of mandibular central incisors, canines, first premolars and first molars were evaluated at 0, 5, 10, 15 and 60 minutes after injection of local anesthetic solution using both an electric pulp tester and a sharp explorer.

RESULTS

The success rates of pulpal anesthesia in the IANB group (central incisor, 6%; canine, 37%; first premolar, 54%; first molar, 88%) were not significantly different from the GGMB group (central incisor, 8.1%; canine, 37.1%; first premolar, 54.8%; first molar, 83.9%). All subjects achieved 100% lip numbness with both methods. At 60 minutes after injection, the success rates of gingival tissue anesthesia in canine buccal and lingual areas were higher in the IANB group (100% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (91.9% and 93.5%, respectively). In the molar buccal area, the success rates at 5 and 60 minutes after injection were higher in the IANB group (97% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (88.7% and 91.9%, respectively). Furthermore, the success rates in the molar lingual area at 10, 15 and 60 minutes after injection were higher in the IANB group (100%, 100% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (91.9%, 93.5% and 91.9%, respectively). Although IANB achieved higher success rates of gingival tissue anesthesia in some gingival areas, no significant difference between the two methods was found in overall efficacy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the efficacy of pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia are not significantly different between the GGMB and IANB methods.

摘要

背景

尽管先前有多项研究比较了Gow-Gates下颌阻滞(GGMB)和下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)的疗效,但结果仍存在争议。本研究采用客观、标准化且精确的方案来评估和比较GGMB和IANB的有效性及成功率。

方法

研究组由162例患者(93例男性和69例女性)组成,他们被随机分配接受GGMB或IANB以拔除第三磨牙。两种方法均为每位患者使用2.7 mL的2%利多卡因。在注射局部麻醉溶液后的0、5、10、15和60分钟,使用牙髓电活力测试仪和尖锐探针评估下颌中切牙、尖牙、第一前磨牙和第一磨牙的牙髓及牙龈组织麻醉情况。

结果

IANB组牙髓麻醉的成功率(中切牙,6%;尖牙,37%;第一前磨牙,54%;第一磨牙,88%)与GGMB组(中切牙,8.1%;尖牙,37.1%;第一前磨牙,54.8%;第一磨牙,83.9%)相比,差异无统计学意义。两种方法均可使所有受试者的唇部麻木率达到100%。注射后60分钟,IANB组犬牙颊侧和舌侧牙龈组织麻醉的成功率(分别为100%和100%)高于GGMB组(分别为91.9%和93.5%)。在磨牙颊侧区域,注射后5分钟和60分钟时IANB组的成功率(分别为97%和100%)高于GGMB组(分别为88.7%和91.9%)。此外,注射后10分钟、15分钟和60分钟时,IANB组磨牙舌侧区域的成功率(分别为100%、100%和100%)高于GGMB组(分别为91.9%、93.5%和91.9%)。尽管IANB在某些牙龈区域的牙龈组织麻醉成功率较高,但两种方法在总体疗效上无显著差异。

结论

本研究表明,GGMB和IANB方法在牙髓和牙龈组织麻醉的疗效上无显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验