PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The inability in achieving complete pulpal anesthesia with standard buccal infiltration especially in cases with SIP used for maxillary teeth. The study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal and buccal plus palatal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in permanent maxillary first molars with the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18-50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by \"no pain (0 mm)\" or \"mild pain (0-54 mm)\" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA.
UNASSIGNED: The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18-50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by \"no pain (0 mm)\" or \"mild pain (0-54 mm)\" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA.
UNASSIGNED: The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars.
摘要：
■无法通过标准口腔浸润实现完全牙髓麻醉，尤其是在SIP用于上颌牙的情况下。该研究旨在比较使用2％利多卡因和4％阿替卡因在永久性上颌第一磨牙中的颊和颊加pal浸润技术的麻醉效果，并诊断为有症状的不可逆性牙髓炎（SIP）。
■临床诊断为SIP的123例患者，18~50岁的患者被随机分配到3个治疗组(N=41).第1组（BIL）：使用2％利多卡因和1：80,000肾上腺素的口腔浸润技术。第2组(BPIL):使用2%利多卡因和1:80,000肾上腺素的颊部+腭部浸润的组合。第3组（BIA）：使用4％阿替卡因和1：100,000肾上腺素的口腔浸润。在龋齿去除期间的牙髓手术期间，在局部麻醉给药之前和之后记录患者的疼痛强度。使用Heft-Parker视觉模拟量表（HP-VAS）进行访问准备和纸浆去除。成功定义为牙髓手术期间的“无痛（0mm）”或“轻度疼痛（0-54mm）”。使用卡方检验分析麻醉有效率，使用单向方差分析的年龄差异。
■最终分析共包括117名患者。与I组（69％）和III组（74％）相比，II组（85％）的成功率更高，但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。我们的结果表明，所有三组的性别之间没有显着差异（p>0.05）。
■使用颊加腭浸润和4％阿替卡因可以为上颌第一磨牙SIP患者提供有效的麻醉作为标准颊浸润和2％利多卡因。
■临床诊断为SIP的123例患者，18~50岁的患者被随机分配到3个治疗组(N=41).第1组（BIL）：使用2％利多卡因和1：80,000肾上腺素的口腔浸润技术。第2组(BPIL):使用2%利多卡因和1:80,000肾上腺素的颊部+腭部浸润的组合。第3组（BIA）：使用4％阿替卡因和1：100,000肾上腺素的口腔浸润。在龋齿去除期间的牙髓手术期间，在局部麻醉给药之前和之后记录患者的疼痛强度。使用Heft-Parker视觉模拟量表（HP-VAS）进行访问准备和纸浆去除。成功定义为牙髓手术期间的“无痛（0mm）”或“轻度疼痛（0-54mm）”。使用卡方检验分析麻醉有效率，使用单向方差分析的年龄差异。
■最终分析共包括117名患者。与I组（69％）和III组（74％）相比，II组（85％）的成功率更高，但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。我们的结果表明，所有三组的性别之间没有显着差异（p>0.05）。
■使用颊加腭浸润和4％阿替卡因可以为上颌第一磨牙SIP患者提供有效的麻醉作为标准颊浸润和2％利多卡因。
