scholarly journals Extraction of Maxillary Teeth Using 4% Articaine with Buccal Infiltration Only in Comparison with 2% Lidocaine Buccal and Palatal Infiltration

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 84-90
Author(s):  
Hussam Omer Ahmed Mohamed El-Amin ◽  
Elneel Ahmed MohamedAli
Keyword(s):  
Buccal Infiltration

Pain Perception: Computerized versus Traditional Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 470-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mittal ◽  
A Kumar ◽  
D Srivastava ◽  
P Sharma ◽  
S Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Computerized Method ◽  
Local Anesthetic Injection ◽  
Computerized System ◽  
Buccal Infiltration

Background: Local anesthetic injection is one of the most anxiety- provoking procedure for both children and adult patients in dentistry. A computerized system for slow delivery of local anesthetic has been developed as a possible solution to reduce the pain related to the local anesthetic injection. Study design: The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare pain perception rates in pediatric patients with computerized system and traditional methods, both objectively and subjectively. Study design: It was a randomized controlled study in one hundred children aged 8-12 years in healthy physical and mental state, assessed as being cooperative, requiring extraction of maxillary primary molars. Children were divided into two groups by random sampling - Group A received buccal and palatal infiltration injection using Wand, while Group B received buccal and palatal infiltration using traditional syringe. Visual Analog scale (VAS) was used for subjective evaluation of pain perception by patient. Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scale was used as an objective method where sound, eye and motor reactions of patient were observed and heart rate measurement using pulse oximeter was used as the physiological parameter for objective evaluation. Results: Patients experienced significantly less pain of injection with the computerized method during palatal infiltration, while less pain was not statistically significant during buccal infiltration. Heart rate increased during both buccal and palatal infiltration in traditional and computerized local anesthesia, but difference between traditional and computerized method was not statistically significant. Conclusion: It was concluded that pain perception was significantly more during traditional palatal infiltration injection as compared to computerized palatal infiltration, while there was no difference in pain perception during buccal infiltration in both the groups

Articaine and Lidocaine Mandibular Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Cross-Over Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Dib Kanaa ◽  
John Martin Whitworth ◽  
Ian Porter Corbett ◽  
John Gerard Meechan
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

The Effect of Maxillary First Molar Root Length on the Success Rate of Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 1462-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehsan Moradi Askari ◽  
Masoud Parirokh ◽  
Nouzar Nakhaee ◽  
Hamid Reza Hosseini ◽  
Paul V. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Root Length ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

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 Comparison of Depth of Anesthesia in Different Parts of Maxilla When Only Buccal Anesthesia Was Done for Maxillary Teeth Extraction

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubilay Isik ◽  
Abdullah Kalayci ◽  
Ercan Durmus
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Depth Of Anesthesia ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Anesthetic Solution ◽  
Teeth Extraction ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia ◽  
Different Parts

Objective. Recently, some authors reported that maxillary teeth could be extracted without using palatal anesthesia, but they did not clearly specify the extracted teeth. This is important, because apparently the local anesthetic solution infiltrates the maxilla and achieves a sufficient anesthesia in the palatal side. Thus, thickness of the bone may affect the depth of anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the depth of anesthesia in different parts of the maxilla when only a buccal infiltration anesthesia was done.Patients and Method. The maxilla was divided into anterior, premolar, and molar regions. In each region, 15 teeth were extracted with a single buccal infiltration. The patient marked the pain level on a numerical rating scale.Results. Anesthesia depth was sufficient and was not significantly different () among three maxillary regions.Conclusion. Except for surgical interventions, all maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a buccal infiltration anesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document