共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Clinical Oral Investigations - To evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection in single-visit endodontic therapy, an in vivo study. Teeth in... 相似文献
2.
Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Gallatin E Stabile P Reader A Nist R Beck M 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》2000,89(1):83-87
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of an intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, each of 48 subjects randomly received 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were (1) an inferior alveolar nerve block (with 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine) + intraosseous injection with 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine and (2) an inferior alveolar nerve (with 1. 8 mL of 3% mepivacaine) + mock intraosseous injection. The first molar was blindly pulp tested at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful with 2 consecutive 80 readings. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. RESULTS: All subjects had lip numbness with both of the inferior alveolar nerve + intraosseous techniques. Anesthetic success for the first molar was significantly increased for 30 minutes with intraosseous injection of mepivacaine in comparison with the inferior alveolar nerve block alone (mock intraosseous injection). Subjects receiving the intraosseous injection of mepivacaine experienced minimal increases in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: The intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine, when used to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block, significantly increased anesthetic success for 30 minutes in the first molar. The 3% mepivacaine had a minimal effect on heart rate and would be useful in patients with contraindications to epinephrine use. 相似文献
3.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a repeated intraosseous injection given 30 minutes after a primary intraosseous injection. Using a crossover design, 55 subjects randomly received a primary X-tip intraosseous injection (Dentsply Inc, York, PA) of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (using the Wand; Milestone Scientific, Deerfield, IL) and a repeated intraosseous or mock injection at 30 minutes in two appointments. The first molar and adjacent teeth were pulp tested every 2 minutes for a total of 120 minutes. Success was defined as obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester. Success of the initial intraosseous injection was 100% for the first molar. The repeated intraosseous injection mimicked the initial intraosseous injection in terms of pulpal anesthesia and statistically provided another 15 minutes of pulpal anesthesia. In conclusion, using the methodology presented, repeating the intraosseous injection 30 minutes after an initial intraosseous injection will provide an additional 15 minutes of pulpal anesthesia. 相似文献
4.
Nusstein J Burns Y Reader A Beck M Weaver J 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》2004,97(2):164-172
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare injection pain and postinjection pain of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system to administer the palatal-anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) injection. Additionally study was done to determine if the use of topical anesthetic decreased the pain of needle insertion with the P-ASA injection. STUDY DESIGN: Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, P-ASA injections of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.4 mL of 3% mepivacaine, at 2 separate appointments. The P-ASA injection was administered, utilizing the Wand Plus system, 6 to 10 mm into the incisive canal located lingual to the central incisors. The pain of needle insertion, needle placement, solution deposition and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale for the 2 P-ASA injections. Eighty injections were randomly administered in the study, 40 using topical anesthetic gel and 40 using a placebo gel. RESULTS: For needle insertion, 30% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 43% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. There was no significant difference (P > .05) between the topical and placebo groups. For needle placement into the incisive canal, 54% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 58% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. For anesthetic solution deposition, 8% of the subjects reported moderate pain with the lidocaine solution and 12% reported moderate pain with the mepivacaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Regarding postinjection pain, when anesthesia wore off on the day of the injection, 20% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 14% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. Pain ratings decreased over the next 3 days. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Postinjection, 12% and 18% of the subjects experienced temporary numbness/paresthesia of the incisive papilla with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. Twenty percent and 28% of the subjects had incisive papilla swelling or soreness with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The P-ASA injection of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine, administered with the Wand Plus, has the potential to be a painful injection. The use of topical anesthetic did not significantly reduce pain of needle insertion when compared to a placebo. The incidence of postinjection pain, temporary numbness/paresthesia, and incisive papilla swelling or soreness would indicate that some pain and problems occur with the P-ASA technique, regardless of whether 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine is used. 相似文献
5.
Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection for teeth with irreversible pulpitis 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a supplemental intraosseous injection (IOI) of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using the Stabident device, after conventional anesthetic methods had failed. Patients who experienced pain during endodontic access and required a supplemental IOI using 0.45 to 0.90 ml of the local anesthetic were identified. All 37 of the patients treated had teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Thirty-four of the teeth were mandibular posterior teeth, 2 were maxillary posterior teeth, and 1 was a maxillary anterior tooth. Patients with maxillary teeth had received infiltration anesthesia, and those with mandibular teeth had received an inferior alveolar nerve block in conjunction with long buccal infiltration. A minimum of 3.6 ml of local anesthetic was used with the conventional techniques. Modified visual analogue scales, coupled with operator evaluations, were used to measure success. The Stabident IOI was an effective supplemental anesthetic technique in 89% (+/- 5.1) or 33/37 patients evaluated. The 95% confidence interval was 74 to 97%. The IOI was successful in 91% (+/- 4.9) of the mandibular posterior teeth (31/34), and 67% of the maxillary teeth (2/3). 相似文献
6.
The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection, using the X-tip system in an apical location, in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block failed. Thirty-three emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an inferior alveolar nerve block and had moderate-to-severe pain on endodontic access. The X-tip system was used to administer 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The X-tip injection site was 3- to 7-mm apical to the mucogingival junction of the affected tooth. Success of the X-tip intraosseous injection was defined as none or mild pain on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The results of this study demonstrated that 6 of 33 (18%) X-tip injections resulted in backflow of anesthetic solution into the oral cavity; none were successful in obtaining anesthesia. Twenty-seven of the remaining 33 X-tip injections (82%) were successful. We conclude that when the inferior alveolar nerve block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the X-tip system, when used in an apical location and when there was no backflow of the anesthetic solution into the oral cavity, was successful in achieving pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis. 相似文献
7.
Volumes of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The first molars, first premolars, and lateral incisors of 462 subjects were pulp tested for 55-60 minutes following administration of inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Results showed no significant difference between the two volumes of anesthetic in achieving successful pulpal anesthesia. 相似文献
8.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Seventy-two emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 2.2 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2.2 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 min after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as none or mild pain (Visual Analogue Scale recordings) on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using articaine was 24% and for the lidocaine solution success was 23%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.89) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Neither solution resulted in an acceptable rate of anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis. 相似文献
9.
Deron Reisman DDS MS Al Reader DDS MS Robert Nist DDS MS Mike Beck DDS MA Joel Weaver DDS PhD 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》1997,84(6):676-682
Objective. To determine the efficacy of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Intraosseous injection pain, subjective heart rate increase, and pain ratings during endodontic treatment were also assessed.Study Design. Forty-eight patients with irreversible pulpitis received conventional inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Electric pulp testing was used to determine pulpal anesthesia. Patients who were positive to the pulp testing, or negative to pulp testing but felt pain during endodontic treatment, received an intraosseous injection of 1.8 ml of 3% mepivacaine. A second intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine (1.8 ml) was given if the first injection was unsuccessful.Results. Seventy-five percent of patients required an initial intraosseous injection because of failure to gain pulpal anesthesia. The inferior alveolar block was 25% successful; the first intraosseous injection increased success to 80%. A second intraosseous injection further increased success to 98%. These differences were significant (p < 0.05). Eight percent () of the initial intraosseous injections resulted in solution being expressed into the oral cavity; these were considered technique failures.Conclusions. For mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, a supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine increased anesthetic success. A second intraosseous injection, when necessary, further improved success. 相似文献
10.
Stabile P Reader A Gallatin E Beck M Weaver J 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》2000,89(4):407-411
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of an intraosseous (IO) injection of 1.5% etidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block. STUDY DESIGN: In a repeated-measures designed study, 48 subjects randomly received 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block (with 3% mepivacaine) + IO injection with 1.8 mL of 1.5% etidocaine hydrochloride containing 1:200,000 epinephrine, and an IAN + mock IO injection. The first molar was blindly tested with a pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings (no subject response) were obtained. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. RESULTS: Lip numbness occurred in 100% of the subjects with both the techniques. For the first molar, anesthetic success for the IAN + mock IO and the IAN + IO etidocaine hydrochloride groups, respectively, were 81% and 100%. The differences were significant (P <.05) when the IAN + IO etidocaine hydrochloride technique was compared with the IAN + mock IO. A mean increase in heart rate of 32 beats/min occurred in 90% of the subjects with the IO injection of the etidocaine hydrochloride solution. In 89% of these subjects, the heart rate returned to within 5 beats of baseline values 4 minutes or less after solution deposition. CONCLUSIONS: The IO injection of 1.8 mL of 1.5% etidocaine hydrochloride with 1:200,000 epinephrine, when used to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block, significantly increased anesthetic success in the first molar. The majority of subjects receiving the IO injection of the etidocaine hydrochloride solution had a transient increase in heart rate. 相似文献
11.
Clinical anatomy of the superior alveolar nerves 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
Unilateral dissections were carried out on 19 human cadaver heads to demonstrate the superior alveolar nerves and vessels. The positions of foramina on the infratemporal surface of the maxilla were noted and, after decalcification of the bone, a transillumination technique was used to display the nerves and vessels in situ. Considerable variation was found in the origin, path and branches of anterior superior alveolar nerves. A middle superior alveolar nerve was found in seven dissections. The clinical importance of these findings is discussed in relation to local analgesia and surgery of the maxillary antrum. 相似文献
12.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine to lidocaine plus meperidine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IAN) in patients with mandibular posterior teeth experiencing irreversible pulpitis. Forty-eight emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a single-blind manner, 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug epinephrine or 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug of epinephrine plus 36 mg meperidine with 18 mug epinephrine, using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as no or mild pain (visual analog scale recordings) upon endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using the lidocaine solution was 26%, and for the lidocaine/meperidine solution, the success rate was 12%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.28) between the two solutions. In conclusion, for mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, the addition of 36 mg of meperidine to a lidocaine solution administered in a conventional IAN block did not improve the success rate over a standard lidocaine solution. 相似文献
13.
Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block. 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
S Clark A Reader M Beck W J Meyers 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》1999,87(5):557-563
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the mylohyoid nerve block and the combination mylohyoid nerve block/conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received each of 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + mock IAN block. The mylohyoid injections were aided by the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested with a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block and mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block techniques. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates were higher in posterior teeth (73% to 93%) than in anterior teeth (33% to 60%). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. The mylohyoid nerve block + mock IAN block technique resulted in a very low success rate (0% to 17%) and was significantly different (P < .05) from the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the mylohyoid nerve block does not by itself predictably provide pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth and does not significantly enhance pulpal anesthesia when administered in combination with the IAN block. 相似文献
14.
The posterior superior alveolar (PSA) injection technique has varied over time with respect to the depth and angle of penetration, the location for deposition of anesthetic agent, and the number of injections necessary to assure adequate anesthesia to the maxillary molars. Of the standard intraoral injections, the PSA carries with it the second highest risk for anesthesia complications. With changes in armamentarium and technique, the complication rates have declined and more often are associated with anatomical considerations with respect to neurovascular compromise and/or anesthetic solution. In this study, the PSA injection technique and complication histories were investigated. Seventeen variations to the technique are reported along with 12 injection complications. A historic injection complication classification system is presented along with a management strategy based upon a review of reported provider experiences and treatment suggestions. 相似文献
15.
The aim of this randomized, double-blinded study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (AE) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) for Gow-Gates blocks and maxillary infiltrations in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular and maxillary posterior teeth. Forty patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a posterior tooth randomly received either AE or LE by using a Gow-Gates injection or maxillary infiltration. Endodontic access was initiated after no response to Endo-ice 15 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as none to mild pain on a visual analogue scale after access. Chi-square and analysis of variance statistical tests were used to analyze the data. Successful endodontic treatment substantially reduced the assessment of pulpitis pain by patients (analysis of variance, P < .0001). Overall anesthetic success in both dental arches was 87.5%. Anesthetic success was not influenced by tooth arch (chi(2), P > .7515) or gender (chi(2), P > .1115). AE proved to be as effective but not superior to LE (P > .6002). These results demonstrated the similar anesthetic effectiveness of AE and LE when used during the endodontic treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. 相似文献
16.
17.
Anesthetic efficacy of unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine cross innervation in anterior teeth 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Yonchak T Reader A Beck M Meyers WJ 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》2001,92(2):132-135
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine whether cross innervation occurs in anterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, 38 subjects randomly received unilateral or bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks at two separate appointments. Each inferior alveolar nerve block used 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp-tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes' postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with each of the inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. Anesthetic success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block were 39% for the central incisor, 50% for the lateral incisor, and 68% for the canine. For the bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks, success rates were 66% for the central incisor, 74% for the lateral incisor, and 76% for the canine. The bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block success rates were significantly (P <.05) higher for the central and lateral incisors when compared with the success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block. CONCLUSIONS: Cross innervation does seem to occur in mandibular central and lateral incisors. However, the success rates in these teeth with bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks were below 75%. The failure of the inferior alveolar nerve blocks to anesthetize the anterior teeth was the overriding reason for failure. Clinically, bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to provide profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular anterior teeth are not recommended on the basis of the results of this study. 相似文献
18.
This study sought to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and if individual patient factors, pulpal disease characteristics, and previous medication are correlated to local anesthetic success. A second objective was to determine the specificity and sensibility of a cold test for prediction of anesthetic success prior to endodontic treatment. Seventy patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth received 1.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using a metal guide. The anesthetic solution was injected with a computer-preprogrammed delivery system for local anesthesia. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition; later, patients rated their discomfort using the visual analog scale (VAS). The success rate for the IA NB using articaine was 64.2% in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and 86.9% in patients with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Cold test prior to root canal treatment had a specificity and sensibility of 12.5% and 87.1%, respectively. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in irreversible pulpitis is moderately acceptable, and anesthetic success increases when the patient has been premedicated with NSAIDs. The cold test appears to be a favorable indicator for predicting anesthetic success. 相似文献
19.
20.
Nusstein J Lee S Reader A Beck M Weaver J 《Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics》2004,98(1):124-131
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare the pain of injection and post-injection pain of the AMSA injection using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system versus a conventional syringe. STUDY DESIGN: Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received 2 blinded AMSA injections using the Wand Plus system and a conventional syringe, at 2 separate appointments. The AMSA injection site was centered halfway between the midpalatine raphe and gingival margin of the first and second premolars. The pain of needle insertion, anesthetic solution deposition pain, and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker VAS for the 2 AMSA injections. RESULTS: For needle insertion, 38% of the subjects had moderate/severe pain with the Wand Plus((R)) and 34% moderate/severe pain with the conventional syringe, with no significant difference between techniques. There was a significant difference for solution deposition pain, with the conventional syringe causing more moderate/severe pain (42% conventional vs. 25% for the Wand Plus. Regarding postinjection pain, after numbness wore off there was no significant difference between the Wand Plus injection technique (0% moderate pain) and the conventional syringe technique (8% moderate pain). Postinjection, approximately 8% to 10% of the subjects experienced slight palatal swelling and 2% experienced temporary numbness. These problems resolved quickly and were considered minor. CONCLUSIONS: The AMSA injection, using the Wand Plus, resulted in similar pain ratings for needle insertion as the conventional syringe but statistically lower pain ratings upon anesthetic solution deposition. However, the AMSA, using either the Wand Plus or a conventional syringe, has the potential to be a painful injection. We found the incidence of postinjection pain and sequelae was low with both techniques. 相似文献