首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects >Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of warm, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial
【24h】

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of warm, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial

机译:温暖,缓冲和常规2%利多卡因麻醉对下颌原发磨牙成功的下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)的麻醉效果比较评估:一项随机对照临床试验

获取原文
       

摘要

Background. Maintaining primary teeth in the oral cavity is of prime importance, and grossly carious teeth may require pulp therapy to this end. Pain on injection and incomplete anesthesia causes failure of the procedure, resulting in fear and anxiety. Various methods have evolved to overcome this, such as distraction, topical anesthesia, etc. A new technique gaining popularity in dentistry in recent times is the warming or buffering of the solution prior to administration. Thus the aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the anesthetic efficacy and the patienta??s pain reaction to pre-warmed, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique in mandibular primary molars undergoing pulp therapy. Methods. In this randomized, split-mouth clinical trial, sixty children 6a??12 years of age, requiring pulp therapy bilaterally on mandibular primary molars, were administered conventional, buffered or pre-warmed 2% lignocaine on two separate appointments. Various parameters were assessed using objective and subjective scales. Results. Pre-warmed and buffered anesthetics resulted in less pain on injection (P&0.001, P&0.001) and during pulp therapy (P=0.001, P=0.014), faster onset of action (P=0.004, P=0.001), lower SEM Sound (P=0.035, P=0.028), Eye (P&0.001, P=0.013) and Motor (P=0.008, P=0.021) scores and shorter duration of action (P&0.001, P=0.015). No significant difference was found between the two modified solutions. Thus pre-warmed and buffered anesthetic solutions fared better than the conventional solution for all the parameters but had no advantage over each other. Conclusion. Buffering or pre-warming the anesthetic solution reduced pain on administration and during the procedures in children.
机译:背景。在口腔中保持乳牙至关重要,为此,严重龋齿可能需要牙髓治疗。注射时疼痛和麻醉不彻底会导致手术失败,从而导致恐惧和焦虑。已经开发出多种方法来克服这一问题,例如分散注意力,局部麻醉等。近来在牙科领域流行的新技术是在施用前对溶液进行加热或缓冲。因此,本研究的目的是比较和评估麻醉药的功效以及患者对预热,缓冲和常规2%利多卡因的麻醉作用,以成功实现下牙槽磨牙的下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)技术的成功接受纸浆疗法。方法。在这项随机,双口临床试验中,对60名年龄在6a ?? 12岁以下的儿童进行了双侧下颌磨牙的双侧牙髓治疗,分别接受了常规的,缓冲的或预热的2%利多卡因的两次预约。使用客观和主观量表评估各种参数。结果。预热和缓冲麻醉药可减少注射时的疼痛感(P <0.001,P <0.001)和牙髓治疗期间的疼痛感(P = 0.001,P = 0.014),起效快(P = 0.004,P = 0.001),降低SEM声音(P = 0.035,P = 0.028),眼睛(P <0.001,P = 0.013)和运动(P = 0.008,P = 0.021)得分和较短的作用持续时间(P <0.001,P = 0.015)。两种修改后的解决方案之间没有发现显着差异。因此,对于所有参数而言,预热和缓冲麻醉药的效果要比传统麻醉药好,但彼此之间没有优势。结论。麻醉溶液的缓冲或预热可减轻儿童给药和手术过程中的疼痛。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号