Suppr超能文献

在下颌前磨牙双侧治疗性拔除中浸润麻醉(INF)与下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉(IANB)注射技术的比较

Comparison of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection techniques in bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars.

作者信息

Rajendran Balamurugan, Thaneraj Sahana Pushpa

机构信息

Department of Dentistry, RYA COSMO Foundation, Chennai, India.

出版信息

J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021 Fall;15(4):269-272. doi: 10.34172/joddd.2021.044. Epub 2021 Dec 5.

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the anesthetic effect of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) techniques for bilateral therapeutic extraction of mandibular premolars. One hundred patients requiring bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars were included in the study. For the extraction of the mandibular right premolar tooth, INF was used, and after one week, the mandibular left premolar tooth was extracted using the IANB. The effect of anesthesia between the two techniques was compared and evaluated by ANOVA using SPSS. INF was successful in 78% of cases, whereas IANB was successful only in 22% of cases. Furthermore, INF had a significantly better anesthetic effect than IANB ( < 0.05). During pain assessment during the anesthetic drug injection and the procedure, two patients in the INF and five patients in the IANB group reported minimal pain during extraction ( > 0.05). The onset of the anesthetic effect was faster in the INF group, while the duration of the effect was longer in the IANB group. INF was a more efficacious local anesthetic technique with high success rate than the IANB technique.

摘要

本研究旨在评估和比较浸润麻醉(INF)和下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉(IANB)技术在下颌前磨牙双侧治疗性拔除术中的麻醉效果。100例需要双侧治疗性拔除下颌前磨牙的患者纳入本研究。拔除下颌右侧前磨牙时采用INF,一周后,采用IANB拔除下颌左侧前磨牙。使用SPSS软件通过方差分析比较和评估两种技术之间的麻醉效果。INF在78%的病例中成功,而IANB仅在22%的病例中成功。此外,INF的麻醉效果明显优于IANB(<0.05)。在麻醉药物注射和手术过程中的疼痛评估中,INF组有2例患者和IANB组有5例患者在拔牙过程中报告有轻微疼痛(>0.05)。INF组麻醉效果的起效更快,而IANB组的效果持续时间更长。与IANB技术相比,INF是一种更有效的局部麻醉技术,成功率更高。

相似文献

1
Comparison of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection techniques in bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021 Fall;15(4):269-272. doi: 10.34172/joddd.2021.044. Epub 2021 Dec 5.
5
7
Comparison of the Gow-Gates mandibular block and inferior alveolar nerve block using a standardized protocol.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2006 Feb;105(2):139-46. doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60335-1.

本文引用的文献

1
Buccal infiltration versus inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular 2 premolars with irreversible pulpitis.
Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 Apr;21(4):473-477. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_135_17.
4
The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations.
Local Reg Anesth. 2015 Dec 18;9:1-6. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S94647. eCollection 2016.
7
Infiltration anesthesia for extraction of the mandibular molars.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Oct;71(10):1658.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.06.203.
8
Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars.
J Endod. 2008 May;34(5):514-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.042.
9
A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Jul;106(1):19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024. Epub 2008 Apr 16.

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