Staedt Henning, Palarie Victor, Heimes Diana, Ottl Peter, Fan Shengchi, Kämmerer Peer W
Department of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University Medical Center Rostock, Strempelstr. 13, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Private University in the Principality of Liechtenstein, Dorfstrasse 24, 9495 Triesen, Liechtenstein.
Biomedicines. 2024 Nov 25;12(12):2691. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12122691.
: Buffered local anesthetics are suggested to enhance patient comfort and anesthetic efficacy during dental procedures. However, their advantages over non-buffered solutions in maxillary third molar extractions remain under-investigated. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study aimed to compare the efficacy of buffered versus non-buffered 4% articaine in terms of pain, anesthetic onset, and the duration of anesthesia during maxillary third molar extractions. : Each participant randomly received two buccal infiltrations on two single appointments to extract maxillary third molars: one with 4% articaine buffered with sodium bicarbonate and the other with non-buffered 4% articaine. Pain during injection, post-extraction pain, onset time, and the duration of anesthesia were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10). : Fifty adult participants (23 males and 27 females) with a mean age of 21.6 years were included in the study. Buffered 4% articaine significantly reduced injection pain (mean VAS: 3.12 ± 1.36 vs. 4.2 ± 0.3, = 0.0001) and post-extraction pain (mean VAS: 4.4 ± 1.75 vs. 5.76 ± 1.78, = 0.0002) compared to non-buffered articaine. Additionally, buffered articaine demonstrated a faster onset of anesthesia (mean time (seconds): 85.92 ± 27.37 vs. 126.86 ± 33.15, < 0.0001) and a longer duration of anesthesia (mean duration (minutes): 70.4 ± 13.64 vs. 51.4 ± 7.2, < 0.0001). Regarding gender's factor, the comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences ( < 0.05) in pain perception between males and females for either injection pain or post-extraction pain. : Buffered 4% articaine provides superior anesthetic efficacy compared to non-buffered 4% articaine, enhancing patient comfort by reducing pain, accelerating onset, and prolonging the duration of anesthesia during maxillary third molar extractions.
有人建议使用缓冲型局部麻醉剂，以提高牙科手术过程中的患者舒适度和麻醉效果。然而，在上颌第三磨牙拔除术中，与非缓冲溶液相比，其优势仍有待深入研究。这项前瞻性、随机、双盲、双侧对照研究旨在比较缓冲型与非缓冲型4%阿替卡因在上颌第三磨牙拔除术中的疼痛、麻醉起效时间和麻醉持续时间方面的效果。
一次使用用碳酸氢钠缓冲的4%阿替卡因，另一次使用非缓冲型4%阿替卡因。使用视觉模拟评分法（VAS；0 - 10）评估注射时的疼痛、拔牙后疼痛、起效时间和麻醉持续时间。
该研究纳入了50名成年参与者（23名男性和27名女性），平均年龄为21.6岁。与非缓冲型阿替卡因相比，缓冲型4%阿替卡因显著减轻了注射疼痛（平均VAS：3.12±1.36 vs. 4.2±0.3，P = 0.0001）和拔牙后疼痛（平均VAS：4.4±1.75 vs. 5.76±1.78，P = 0.0002）。此外，缓冲型阿替卡因的麻醉起效更快（平均时间（秒）：85.92±27.37 vs. 126.86±33.15，P < 0.0001），麻醉持续时间更长（平均持续时间（分钟）：70.4±13.64 vs. 51.4±7.2，P < 0.0001）。关于性别因素，比较显示男性和女性在注射疼痛或拔牙后疼痛的疼痛感知方面没有统计学上的显著差异（P < 0.05）。
与非缓冲型4%阿替卡因相比，缓冲型4%阿替卡因具有更好的麻醉效果，通过减轻疼痛、加速起效和延长上颌第三磨牙拔除术中的麻醉持续时间来提高患者舒适度。
