Oliveira Allan Carlos Araújo de, Amorim Klinger de Souza, Nascimento Júnior Edmundo Marques do, Duarte Amanda Caroline Batista, Groppo Francisco Carlos, Takeshita Wilton Mitsunari, Souza Liane Maciel de Almeida
Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Departamento de Odontologia, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brasil.
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba, Laboratório de Farmacologia, Anestesiologia e Terapêutica, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brasil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Jan 14;27:e20180195. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195.
Pain due to administration of local anesthetics is the primary reason for patients' fear and anxiety, and various methods are used to minimize it. This study aimed to measure the degree of pain during administration of anesthesia and determine the latency time and duration of pulpal anesthesia using two anesthetic methods in the maxilla.
A randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 41 volunteers who required class I restorations in the maxillary first molars. Local anesthesia was administered with a needleless jet injection system (experimental group) or with a carpule syringe (control) using a 30-gauge short needle. The method of anesthesia and laterality of the maxilla were randomized. A pulp electric tester measured the latency time and duration of anesthesia in the second molar. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the degree of pain during the anesthetic method. Data were tabulated and then analyzed by a statistician. The t-test was used to analyze the differences between the groups for basal electrical stimulation. Duration of anesthesia and degree of pain were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. A 5% significance level was considered.
There was no statistical difference in the basal electrical stimulation threshold (mA) and degree of pain between the two methods of anesthesia (p>0.05). Latency time was 2 minutes for all subjects. The duration of pulpal anesthesia showed no statistical difference (minutes) between the two methods (p<0.001), with a longer duration for the traditional method of anesthesia (median of 40 minutes).
The two anesthetics methods did not differ concerning the pain experienced during anesthesia. Latency lasted 2 minutes for all subjects; the traditional infiltration anesthesia resulted in a longer anesthetic duration compared with the needleless jet injection.
局部麻醉药给药引起的疼痛是患者恐惧和焦虑的主要原因，人们采用了各种方法来尽量减轻这种疼痛。本研究旨在测量麻醉给药过程中的疼痛程度，并使用两种麻醉方法确定上颌骨牙髓麻醉的潜伏时间和持续时间。
对41名需要对上颌第一磨牙进行I类修复的志愿者进行了一项随机、单盲、双侧对照临床试验。使用无针喷射注射系统（实验组）或使用30号短针的卡普乐注射器（对照组）进行局部麻醉。麻醉方法和上颌骨的侧别是随机的。牙髓电测试仪测量第二磨牙的麻醉潜伏时间和持续时间。视觉模拟量表（VAS）用于测量麻醉方法实施过程中的疼痛程度。数据制成表格，然后由统计学家进行分析。t检验用于分析两组基础电刺激之间的差异。使用曼-惠特尼检验比较麻醉持续时间和疼痛程度。考虑显著性水平为5%。
两种麻醉方法在基础电刺激阈值（mA）和疼痛程度方面无统计学差异（p>0.05）。所有受试者的潜伏时间均为2分钟。两种方法之间牙髓麻醉的持续时间无统计学差异（分钟）（p<0.001），传统麻醉方法的持续时间更长（中位数为40分钟）。
两种麻醉方法在麻醉过程中所经历的疼痛方面没有差异。所有受试者的潜伏时间均为2分钟；与无针喷射注射相比，传统浸润麻醉的麻醉持续时间更长。
