Showing 4 results for Local
M Vatanpour, N Roghanizad, D Bineshmarvasti, R Hosseini, P Mohebbi,
Volume 2, Issue 4 (10-2017)
Abstract
Background and Aim: The Gow-Gates (GG) block and the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) can be used interchangeably for anesthetizing mandibular molars. The aim of this study was to compare these two injections in root canal therapy of mandibular molars with regard to heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (BOS) changes.
Materials and Methods: Thirty patients between the ages of 18-70 years having mandibular molars on both sides of their jaw and in need of root canal therapy were recruited after signing a consent form. The patients' HR and BOS were measured 5 minutes before and immediately, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes after injection by using a pulse oximeter. Paired t-test and Friedman test were used for statistical analysis of the data.
Results: This study was done on 30 patients (60 teeth). The results of HR and BOS showed no significant differences between the two injection techniques (P=0.6 and 0.7, respectively). Also, HR and BOS in each group were not significantly changed during the follow-ups (P=0.7 and 0.6, respectively).
Conclusion: According to the results, IANB and GG block by using 2% lidocaine and 1:80000 epinephrine had no significant different effects on HR and BOS.
E Esnaashari, Sh Mirzaei, Aa Moshari, P Razavi,
Volume 7, Issue 3 (7-2022)
Abstract
Background and Aim: Achieving adequate pulpal anesthesia could be challenging in mandibular molars. There are some disagreements about the success rate of local infiltration anesthesia with articaine as primary injection. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 4% articaine lingual subperiosteal injection as the primary injection for permanent mandibular second molars in comparison with inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB).
Materials and Methods: Fifteen healthy adult volunteers participated in this study. A randomized, split-mouth, single-blind design was used to allocate each side of the mandible in each patient to the test or control group. On the test side, lingual subperiosteal injection with 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine was
performed for the mandibular second molar; whereas, in the control group, an IANB with 2% lidocaine and 1:80,000 epinephrine was administered. Electric pulp testing was done at baseline, and also at 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after injection. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test and Chi-square test.
Results: The success rate of IANB was significantly higher than that of lingual subperiosteal injection (P=0.0001). The difference in the onset of action between the two groups was significant (P<0.05). Anesthesia duration was 61.0±28.0 minutes in IANB group and 10.2±12.4 minutes in lingual subperiosteal injection group, with a significant difference between them (P<0.01).
Conclusion: IANB with 2% lidocaine is preferable to 4% articaine lingual subperiosteal injection due to its superior success rate, faster onset of action, and longer duration of effect. |
|
Mohammad Esmaeilzadeh, Nastaran Sadat Mahdavi, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari, Aliasghar Soleymani, Ahmad Eghbali, Taraneh Faghihi,
Volume 9, Issue 4 (12-2024)
Abstract
Background and Aim: This study compared the efficacy of buccal infiltration anesthesia (BIA) with articaine versus inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with lidocaine for pulpotomy of primary mandibular second molars under intravenous sedation.
Materials and Methods: This split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted on 29 uncooperative children (Frankl scores I & II) between 3-6 years with bilateral primary mandibular second molars requiring pulpotomy. After intravenous sedation, one random quadrant received IANB with 2% lidocaine and the respective tooth underwent pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate and subsequent coronal restoration with a stainless-steel crown. The other quadrant received BIA with 4% articaine in the next session for pulpotomy of the respective tooth. The behavior of children was evaluated right after receiving the sedative (T0), during anesthetic injection (T1), during pulp exposure (T2), and in the recovery room (T3) using non-verbal pain scale-revised (NVPS-R). Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way repeated measures ANOVA (alpha=0.05).
Results: The odds of calmness of children during the entire procedure were 1.7 times higher in BIA than IANB but this difference was not significant (P=0.061). The mean heart rate (HR) of children was generally higher in IANB than BIA (P=0.04 at T1, P<0.001 at T2, and P=0.01 at T3). The effect of time on HR was also significant (P<0.001). Blood oxygen saturation rate (SPO2) was higher in BIA than IANB during the procedure (P<0.001).
Conclusion: BIA with articaine had optimal efficacy comparable to that of IANB with lidocaine for pulpotomy of primary second molars under sedation.
Sanaz Kamareh, Ali Asghar Soleymani, Neda Mozaffari, Ali Amiri, Bornadokht Bazghandi, Mahta Khosrozamiri,
Volume 9, Issue 4 (12-2024)
Abstract
Background and Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration anesthesia (BIA) with 4% articaine versus inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine for extraction of primary mandibular molars.
Materials and Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated 100 children between 4-8 years requiring extraction of primary mandibular molars. The children were randomly assigned to two groups (n=50) of IANB with 2% lidocaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (control), and BIA with 4% articaine and 1:200,000 epinephrine. The Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale were used to assess the analgesic efficacy of each technique, and the resultant behavioral reaction of children. Data were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and independent t-tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: In total, 43 girls and 57 boys with a mean age of 6.59±1.20 years were evaluated. The mean FLACC score was 0.98 in the lidocaine and 1.44 in the articaine group with no significant difference (P=0.246). The mean WBFPS score was significantly higher in the articaine than in the lidocaine group (P=0.039), but the difference between the two groups separately for each tooth type was not significant (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Despite the significantly lower pain score of the IANB with lidocaine group, BIA with 4% articaine was comparable to IANB with 2% lidocaine in behavioral control of children, and may be considered as an acceptable alternative.
