首页> 外文OA文献 >Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial
【2h】

Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial

机译:无需喷射注射麻醉期间的麻醉性能和疼痛评估:随机临床试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Abstract Pain due to administration of local anesthetics is the primary reason for patients' fear and anxiety, and various methods are used to minimize it. This study aimed to measure the degree of pain during administration of anesthesia and determine the latency time and duration of pulpal anesthesia using two anesthetic methods in the maxilla. Materials and Methods: A randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 41 volunteers who required class I restorations in the maxillary first molars. Local anesthesia was administered with a needleless jet injection system (experimental group) or with a carpule syringe (control) using a 30-gauge short needle. The method of anesthesia and laterality of the maxilla were randomized. A pulp electric tester measured the latency time and duration of anesthesia in the second molar. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the degree of pain during the anesthetic method. Data were tabulated and then analyzed by a statistician. The t-test was used to analyze the differences between the groups for basal electrical stimulation. Duration of anesthesia and degree of pain were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. A 5% significance level was considered. Results: There was no statistical difference in the basal electrical stimulation threshold (mA) and degree of pain between the two methods of anesthesia (p>0.05). Latency time was 2 minutes for all subjects. The duration of pulpal anesthesia showed no statistical difference (minutes) between the two methods (p<0.001), with a longer duration for the traditional method of anesthesia (median of 40 minutes). Conclusions: The two anesthetics methods did not differ concerning the pain experienced during anesthesia. Latency lasted 2 minutes for all subjects; the traditional infiltration anesthesia resulted in a longer anesthetic duration compared with the needleless jet injection.
机译:摘要由于局部麻醉品的管理是患者恐惧和焦虑的主要原因,并且各种方法用于最小化它。本研究旨在测量麻醉施用期间的疼痛程度,并在颌骨中使用两种麻醉方法确定脉灰麻醉的潜在时间和持续时间。材料与方法:随机,单盲,分裂口临床试验,用41名志愿者进行,其中需要在上颌第一磨牙中的I级修复。用无针喷射注射系统(实验组)或使用30尺寸短针给药或用颗粒注射器(对照)给药局部麻醉。颌骨的麻醉方法是随机化的。纸浆电测试器测量了第二摩尔中麻醉的潜在时间和持续时间。视觉模拟量表(VAS)用于测量麻醉方法中的疼痛程度。数据被列表,然后由统计学家分析。 T检验用于分析基础电刺激的基团之间的差异。使用Mann-Whitney测试进行麻醉持续时间和疼痛程度。考虑了5%的重要性水平。结果:基础电刺激阈值(mA)没有统计学差异,两种麻醉方法之间的疼痛程度(p> 0.05)。所有受试者的延迟时间为2分钟。脉冲麻醉的持续时间在两种方法(P <0.001)之间没有统计学差异(分钟),具有较长的麻醉方法(40分钟中位数)的持续时间。结论:两种麻醉方法与麻醉期间经历的疼痛没有不同。所有科目的延迟持续了2分钟;与无针喷射注射相比,传统的渗透麻醉导致了较长的麻醉持续时间。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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