Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, K M Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlingga, Surabaya City, East Java, Indonesia.
PeerJ. 2022 Oct 19;10:e14187. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14187. eCollection 2022.
The efficacy of 2% lignocaine is reduced in a hot tooth. Local aesthetic agents can be preheated and buffered to increase their effectiveness. The present investigation was carried out due to limited information concerning adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth.
A total of 252 individuals were included in the clinical trial in accordance with the selection criteria only after clinical study was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2020/09/027796). Scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and electric pulp test (EPT) on a 1-10 scale were recorded prior to the commencement of therapy. In this double-blinded study, patients were randomly divided by a co-investigator using computer randomisation (www.randomizer.org) into three groups, group A: inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with 2% lignocaine preheated at 42 °C (injected at 37 °C) ( = 84), group B: IANB of 2% lignocaine buffered with 0.18 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate ( = 80) and group C: 2% lignocaine ( = 88). Excluding the dropouts of individuals ( = 11), wherein the anaesthesia failed, a total of 241 people were finally assessed 15 minutes after profound anaesthesia, endodontic access, and intraoperative pain were quantified using VAS. Pain on injection for all three groups was recorded immediately after IANB with VAS. The analysis was performed using one way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and Paired T-Test using SPSS version 21.
Preheated, Buffered, and conventional 2% lignocaine showed statistically significant reduction in intraoperative pain ( < 0.001) compared to pre-operative but on inter-group comparison preheated and buffered showed highly significant pain reduction compared with conventional 2% lignocaine ( < 0.001).
Warm and buffered local anaesthetic (LA) were effective in reducing intraoperative discomfort than conventional LA. Preheated local anesthetics caused the least pain, followed by buffered local anesthetics, while conventional local anesthetics caused the most pain.
在热牙中,2%利多卡因的疗效降低。局部麻醉剂可以进行预热和缓冲,以提高其效果。由于下颌牙齿有症状不可逆转性牙髓炎的成年患者的相关信息有限,因此进行了本项研究。
仅在临床研究在印度临床试验注册处(CTRI/2020/09/027796)注册后,根据选择标准,共有 252 人符合纳入临床试验标准。在开始治疗前,使用视觉模拟评分(VAS)和电牙髓测试(EPT)记录 1-10 分制的评分。在这项双盲研究中,由共同研究者通过计算机随机化(www.randomizer.org)将患者随机分为三组:A 组:42°C 预热的 2%利多卡因下齿槽神经阻滞(IANB)(注入时为 37°C)(=84),B 组:用 0.18 毫升 8.4%碳酸氢钠缓冲的 2%利多卡因(=80)和 C 组:2%利多卡因(=88)。排除麻醉失败的个体(=11)后,在深度麻醉、牙髓腔进入和术中疼痛使用 VAS 进行定量评估后 15 分钟,最终对 241 人进行评估。用 VAS 记录三组人群 IANB 后即刻的注射疼痛。使用 SPSS 版本 21 中的单因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验以及配对 T 检验进行分析。
与术前相比,预热、缓冲和常规 2%利多卡因均显著降低术中疼痛(<0.001),但组间比较显示,与常规 2%利多卡因相比,预热和缓冲均显著降低疼痛(<0.001)。
与常规局部麻醉剂相比,温热和缓冲的局部麻醉剂(LA)在减轻术中不适方面更有效。预热的局部麻醉剂引起的疼痛最小,其次是缓冲的局部麻醉剂,而常规的局部麻醉剂引起的疼痛最大。