Evaluation of the agreement by examiners accordingto classifications of third molars

Objectives. This study recorded and evaluated the intra- and inter-group agreement degree by different examiners for the classification of lower third molars according to both the Winter’s and Pell & Gregory’s systems. Study Design. An observational and cross-sectional study was realized with forty lower third molars analyzed from twenty digital panoramic radiographs. Four examiner groups (undergraduates, maxillofacial surgeons, oral radiologists and clinical dentists) from Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil, classified them in relation to angulation, class and position. The variance test (ANOVA) was applied in the examiner findings with significance level of p<0.05and confidence intervals of 95%.Results. Intra- and inter-group agreement was observed in Winter’s classification system among all examiners. Pell& Gregory’s classification system showed an average intra-group agreement and a statistical significant difference to position variable in inter-group analysis with greater disagreement to the clinical dentists group (p<0.05).Conclusions. High reproducibility was associated to Winter’s classification, whereas the system proposed by Pell& Gregory did not demonstrate appropriate levels of reliability (AU)

Articaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: A randomized clinical study

Objective: Pain reduction has been the subject of continuous research in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery since postoperative pain with ranging of intensity and duration may affects the patient submitted in an oral surgical procedure. The aim of present study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness between two different anesthetic solutions (articaine and lidocaine) in third molar surgery. Study Design: A prospective, randomized and clinical study with patients submitted to third molar surgery at two distinct times. The visual analogue scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the analgesic consumption record were used to measure the pain after each surgical time. Results: Duration of surgery, latency, the amount of anesthetic used and analgesic consumption showed clinical differences with highlights of articaine, though statistical significance was not observed (P<0.05). The pain scores indicated similar anesthetic efficacy with both solutions. Conclusion: In the present study no significant differences were observed between lidocaine and articaine in the control of postoperative pain (AU)

Articaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: a randomized clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: Pain reduction has been the subject of continuous research in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery since postoperative pain with ranging of intensity and duration may affects the patient submitted in an oral surgical procedure. The aim of present study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness between two different anesthetic solutions (articaine and lidocaine) in third molar surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized and clinical study with patients submitted to third molar surgery at two distinct times. The visual analogue scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the analgesic consumption record were used to measure the pain after each surgical time. RESULTS: Duration of surgery, latency, the amount of anesthetic used and analgesic consumption showed clinical differences with highlights of articaine, though statistical significance was not observed (P<0.05). The pain scores indicated similar anesthetic efficacy with both solutions. CONCLUSION: In the present study no significant differences were observed between lidocaine and articaine in the control of postoperative pain.