scholarly journals Quality of analgesia after lower third molar surgery: A randomised, double-blind study of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Brajkovic ◽  
Vladimir Biocanin ◽  
Marija Milic ◽  
Milan Vucetic ◽  
Renata Petrovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Nerve Block ◽  
Postoperative Analgesia ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Surgical Extraction ◽  
Long Acting

Background/Aim. Surgical extraction of lower third molars is followed by mild or severe postoperative pain which peaks at maximal intensity in the first 12 hours and has a significant impact on a patient?s postoperative quality of life. The use of long-acting local anaesthetics is a promising strategy to improve postoperative analgesia. The aim of the present study was to investigate analgesic parameters and patient satisfaction after using 0.5% levobupivacaine (Lbup), 0.5% bupivacaine (Bup) and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 (Lid + Epi) for an inferior alveolar nerve block following lower third molar surgery. Methods. A total of 102 patients (ASA I) were divided into three groups, each of which received either 3 mL of Lbup, Bup or Lid + Epi. The intensity of postoperative analgesia was measured using a verbal rating scale (VRS). The total amounts of rescue analgesics were recorded on the first and during seven postoperative days. Patients satisfaction was noted using a modified verbal scales. Results. A significantly higher level of postoperative pain was recorded in Lid + Epi group compared to Bup and Lbup groups. No significant differences were seen between Bup and Lbup, but a significant reduction in the need for rescue analgesics was seen postoperatively in both Lbup and Bup (50%) in comparison with Lid + Epi (80%) in the first 24 hours. The same significant trend in rescue analgesic consumption was recorded for seven postoperative days. Patients? overall satisfaction was significantly lower for Lid + Epi (10%) than for Lbup (56%) and Bup (52%). Conclusion. The use of a new and long-acting local anaesthetic 0.5% levobupivacaine is clinically relevant and effective for an inferior alveolar nerve block and postoperative pain control after third molar surgery. In our study Lbup and Bup controled postoperative pain more efficiently after lower third molar surgery compared to Lid + Epi.

scholarly journals 4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiatanant Boonsiriseth ◽  
Sittipong Chaimanakarn ◽  
Prued Chewpreecha ◽  
Natee Nonpassopon ◽  
Manop Khanijou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block

scholarly journals Comparison of Articaine and Lidocaine for Buccal Infiltration After Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block For Intraoperative Pain Control During Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldo Prisco da Silva-Junior ◽  
Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza ◽  
Francisco Carlos Groppo
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Mandibular Third Molar ◽  
Intraoperative Pain ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Mandibular Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Buccal Infiltration

In order to compare the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine for pain control during third molar surgery, 160 patients presenting bilateral asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were selected. They received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 during inferior alveolar nerve block. In group 1 (n = 80), an infiltrative injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 was performed in buccal-distal mucosa of the third molar. Group 2 (n = 80) received 0.9 mL of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in the contralateral side. All procedures were performed at the same visit, by a single operator, in a double-blind and parallel design. The duration of each surgery and the moment when the patient expressed pain were noted. Data were analyzed by nonpaired t test and chi-square test (alpha = 5%). Duration of surgery did not differ (p = .83) between Groups 1 (19.8 ± 2.3 minutes) and 2 (19.7 ± 3.0 minutes). Pain was expressed more in group 1 (26.3%) than in group 2 (10%) (odds ratio = 3.2, p = .0138). In both groups, tooth sectioning was the most painful event (p < .0001). No influence of gender (p = .85) or age (p = .96) was observed in pain response. Buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 showed more efficacy than 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 when used in combination with inferior alveolar nerve block in controlling intraoperative pain related to impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

scholarly journals Use of bufferized dental anesthetics in dental surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-43
Author(s):  
Adel Alfonso Martinez-Martinez ◽  
Elio Jimenez-Batista ◽  
Alexander Morales-Jimenez
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Dental Surgery ◽  
Mandibular Third Molar ◽  
Mandibular Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Buccal Infiltration

Introduction and objective: The addition of epinephrine to the anesthetic solution reduces the pH of the solution to a range between 2.9 and 4.4.The acidity of the anesthetic may delay onset and contribute to injection pain. Objective: to determine the intensity of pain during a mandibular third molar surgery after using buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 in the inferior alveolar nerve block with buccal infiltration. Materials and methods: an observational and descriptive clinical study was performed. The buffered solution was alkalinized with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate with a ratio of 9:1, using a hand-mixing methodology, the sample were patients who required a mandibular third molar surgery. After standardizing the anesthetic technique, it was used the inferior alveolar nerve block followed by buccal infiltration. Results: 32 patients (20 female - 62.5% and 12 male - 37.5%), with an average age of 21.12 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 21.12 ± 3.61) were admitted to the study. When assessing the pain puncture and during the injection, 94% of patients classified it as mild pain according to VAS. When evaluating the latency period, the average time was less than two minutes and the perioral soft tissue anesthesia was 62%. Only a small percentage of patients required complementary anesthesia. Conclusion: buffered 4% of articaine with epinephrine in the inferior alveolar nerve block with buccal infiltration significantly decreased onset time, injection pain and need for complementary anesthesia in third molar surgery.

Inferior alveolar nerve block and third-molar agenesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Swee ◽  
Anthony R. Silvestri ◽  
Matthew D. Finkelman ◽  
Alfred P. Rich ◽  
Stanley A. Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Third Molar Agenesis

scholarly journals Randomized Split-Mouth Study on Postoperative Effects of Palmitoylethanolamide for Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery

ISRN Surgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Bacci ◽  
Giulia Cassetta ◽  
Bruno Emanuele ◽  
Mario Berengo
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Drug Tolerability ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Surgical Extraction ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Molar Extraction

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of Normast 300 mg in reducing swelling and pain after the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. Materials and Methods. A randomized, split-mouth, single-blind study was conducted on 30 patients between 18 and 30 years of age requiring lower third molar extraction. Patients underwent bilateral extractions in a randomized sequence, one extraction being performed under Normast treatment. The Normast treatment involved 2 tablets a day for 15 days. The parameters assessed at each procedure were trismus, swelling, pain, NSAID consumption, postoperative complications, drug tolerability, and safety. The results obtained were processed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results. Perceived postoperative pain was reportedly significantly milder on Normast treatment than control. The trend of the means differed over time (P<.0001) and between the two extraction groups (P<.0221). On the other hand, for edema and trismus, the trend differed over time for both groups but did not differ between the two groups. Discussion. Our analyses indicate that patients experienced significantly less postoperative pain when they were treated with Normast. Conclusions. Administering Normast improves the postoperative course—in terms of pain—after lower third molar extraction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document