RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of the present clinical trial was to compare pain during injection of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) technique with that of infiltration injection technique in the maxilla in periodontal flap surgeries of patients referring to the Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. METHODS: Twenty subjects with an age range of 20 to 40 years were selected for the present study. One side of the maxilla was randomly selected as the test side and the other as the control side using a flip of a coin. AMSA technique was used on the test side and infiltration technique was used on the control side for anesthesia. On both sides 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine was used for anesthesia. The operator obtained the visual analogue scale for each patient immediately after the injection and immediately after surgery. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods (frequency percentages, means and standard deviations) and Wilcoxon's test using SPSS ver. 13 (SPSS Inc.). Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain during injection between the two techniques (P=0.856). There were statistically significant differences in postoperative pain between the two injection techniques (P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative pain in AMSA injection technique was less than that in the infiltration technique. Therefore, the AMSA technique is preferable in the periodontal surgeries for the anesthesia of palatal tissues given the fact that it has other advantages, too.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Amsacrina , Anestesia , Anestesia Local , Odontología , Epinefrina , Lidocaína , Maxilar , Numismática , Dolor Postoperatorio , Periodoncia , PeriodoncioRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of the present clinical trial was to compare pain during injection of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) technique with that of infiltration injection technique in the maxilla in periodontal flap surgeries of patients referring to the Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. METHODS: Twenty subjects with an age range of 20 to 40 years were selected for the present study. One side of the maxilla was randomly selected as the test side and the other as the control side using a flip of a coin. AMSA technique was used on the test side and infiltration technique was used on the control side for anesthesia. On both sides 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine was used for anesthesia. The operator obtained the visual analogue scale for each patient immediately after the injection and immediately after surgery. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods (frequency percentages, means and standard deviations) and Wilcoxon's test using SPSS ver. 13 (SPSS Inc.). Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain during injection between the two techniques (P=0.856). There were statistically significant differences in postoperative pain between the two injection techniques (P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative pain in AMSA injection technique was less than that in the infiltration technique. Therefore, the AMSA technique is preferable in the periodontal surgeries for the anesthesia of palatal tissues given the fact that it has other advantages, too.