Buccal infiltration injection without a 4% articaine palatal injection for maxillary impacted third molar surgery

Som Sochenda; Chakorn Vorakulpipat; Kumar K C; Chavengkiat Saengsirinavin; Manus Rojvanakarn; Natthamet Wongsirichat

doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.4.250

Buccal infiltration injection without a 4% articaine palatal injection for maxillary impacted third molar surgery

Recommendations

Search

Type: Academic journal

Author: Som Sochenda (Mahidol University) Chakorn Vorakulpipat (Mahidol University) Kumar K C (Mahidol University) Chavengkiat Saengsirinavin (Mahidol University) Manus Rojvanakarn (Mahidol University) Natthamet Wongsirichat (Mahidol University)

Journal: Korean Association Of Oral And Maxillofacial Surgeons 대한구강악안면외과학회지 대한구강악안면외과학회지 제46권 제4호

Published: 2020.8

Pages: 250 - 257 (8page)

DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.4.250

Usage

Buccal infiltration injection without a 4% articaine palatal injection for maxillary impacted third molar surgery

Abstract· Keywords

Report Errors

Objectives: Palatal infiltration is the most painful and uncomfortable anesthesia technique for maxillary impacted third molar surgery (MITMS). This approach could cause patients distress and aversion to dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a buccal infiltra-tion injection without a palatal injection in MITMS. Materials and Methods: This prospective research study was a crossover split mouth-randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight healthy symmetrical bilateral MITMS patients (mean age, 23 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. Buccal infiltration injections without palatal injections were designated as the study group and the buccal with palatal infiltration cases were the control group, using 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine. The operation started after 10 minutes of infiltration. Pain assessment was done using a visual analogue scale and a numeric rating scale after each injection and extraction procedure. Similarly, the success rate, hemodynamic parameters, and additional requested local anesthetic were assessed. Results: The results showed that the pain associated with local anesthetic injections between both groups were significantly different. However, the success rates between the groups were not significantly different. Postoperative pain was not significant between both groups and a few patients re-quested an additional local anesthetic, but the results were not statistically significant. For hemodynamic parameters, there was a significant difference in systolic pressure during incision, bone removal, and tooth elevation. In comparison, during the incision stage there was a significant difference in diastolic pressure; however, other steps in the intervention were not significantly different between groups.Conclusion: We concluded that buccal infiltration injection without palatal injection can be an alternative technique instead of the conventional injec-tion for MITMS.

#Anesthesia #Infiltration #Articaine #Maxilla #Third molar surgery

No content found

References (23)

Add References

McCoy JM / 2012 / Complications of retention: pathology associated with retained third molars / Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 20:177~195

Rakprasitkul S / 2001 / Pathologic changes in the pericoronal tissues of unerupted third molars / Quintessence Int 32:633~638

Colombini BL / 2006 / Articaine and mepivacaine efficacy in postoperative analgesia for lower third molar removal : a double-blind, randomized, crossover study / Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:169~174

McArdle BF / 1997 / Painless palatal anesthesia / J Am Dent Assoc 128:647

Gregorio LV / 2008 / A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine)for lower third molar removal / Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:19~28

Recommendations

It is an article recommended by DBpia according to the article similarity. Check out the related articles!