COMPARISON BETWEEN SINGLE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS CONVENTIONAL BUCCAL AND PALATAL INFILTRATION FOR REMOVAL OF MAXILLARY MOLAR TEETH.
Artículo
| IMSEAR
| ID: sea-221426
ABSTRACT
Background:
Although less painful injection techniques have been developed, most individuals still find palatal injection to be unpleasant.Aims:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal infiltration for the removal of maxillary molar teeth. Fifty patie Materials andMethods:
nts participated in a prospective randomized, split-mouth study, Group 1 4% Articaine HCL infiltration – Only buccal, Group 2 2% Lignocaine HCL – Buccal and palatal infiltration. Checking VAS score and Facial pain scale during Infiltration and during extraction. Factor analysis was used to determine the significance of the difference in mean scores between the two groups using both the independent sample t-test. Even though theResults:
difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), patients in the articaine group reported much less discomfort during having their vital maxillary molars extracted compared to the lignocaine group. As was previously mConclusion:
entioned, it is feasible to avoid the palatal injection while removing molars from the maxilla. Specifically, the extraction of the upper molars, and buccal infiltration with articaine is a viable alternative to the use of traditional local anaesthetic.
Texto completo:
Disponible
Índice:
IMSEAR (Asia Sudoriental)
Año:
2023
Tipo del documento:
Artículo
Similares
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS