ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for upper teeth extractions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients were included in the articaine 4% group, and 45 in the mepivacaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Furthermore, the discomfort of the injections were recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with "no pain" (0 mm) and "unbearable pain" (100 mm). RESULTS: There were significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated palatal mucosa and tooth of patients between mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltration (BI) groups P = 0.01 and 0.01. Patients in the articaine group recorded earlier palatal mucosa and teeth numbness than those in the mepivacaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, palatal injection was significantly more painful than BI (t-test: P < 0.001). Articaine buccal injection was significantly more painful than mepivacaine buccal injection (t-test: P <0.001). However, articaine palatal injection was less painful than articaine BI. Clinically, anesthesia onset time was faster in anterior upper teeth than upper middle and posterior teeth. CONCLUSIONS: BIs with 4% articaine was faster in achieving palate and teeth anesthesia than 2% mepivacaine for extraction of upper maxillary teeth. Patients in mepivacaine BI and articaine palatal injection groups reported less pain with needle injection. Failure of anesthesia was noticeable with maxillary multiple-rooted teeth.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the frequency of impacted maxillary canines using seven subtype classification system. For this purpose, impacted maxillary canines have been divided into seven various subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional, and retrospective study conducted using radiographic data of residents of Madinah, Al Munawwarah. Radiographic data of 14,000 patients, who attended College of Dentistry, Taibah University, from January 2011 to February 2015, were screened against the selection criteria for the presence of impacted teeth. The individuals with maxillary impacted canines were matched to maxillary canine impaction. The occurrence of each subtype of impacted canines was calculated. RESULTS: Impacted teeth are more common in the maxilla compared to mandible. The impacted canine represented the highest proportion of all impacted maxillary teeth followed by the second premolars and the central incisors. According to the classification system represented, Type II of canine impaction comprised the highest proportion (51%) while Type IV (0.5%) comprised the lowest frequency. The maxillary canine is the most frequently impacted tooth followed by mandibular canines. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many variations, the majority of impacted canines fall into Type II of the classification of impacted canines.
