ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:80,000 epinephrine) for inferior alveolar nerve block in mesioangular bilaterally impacted third molar extraction. STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with mesioangular bilaterally impacted third molars were taken for the study; either 2% mepivacaine or 2% lidocaine is given in a double-blind manner. Surgery started 5 min after solution deposition. Success was defined as no or mild discomfort (visual analog scale [VAS] recordings) during the surgical procedure. RESULTS: The mean time for onset period 4.2 min and 4.6 min (P = 0.018). The mean duration anesthesia 177.17 min 166.71 min (P = 0.085). No significant difference between the scores of pain reported by the patients by VAS and venovenous bypass treated with mepivacaine and lidocaine (P = 0.000). Slight increased postoperative analgesics required for mepivacaine group (4.000 tablets) and lidocaine group (4.170 tablets) (P = 0.335). The sharp increase of pulse rate with respect to both the solutions at 5 min after postinjection of local anesthetics. However, there was no statically significant difference in systolic and diastolic blood (P = 0.681) and (P = 0.270). CONCLUSION: Lidocaine and mepivacaine with the same vasoconstrictor have similar action and both solutions are effective in surgical procedures. There were also no significant differences between them in relation to the intensity of postoperative pain.
ABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Epidemiological studies have shown strong evidence that periodontal disease does not affect all subjects in the same manner. OBJECTIVE: There are subjects and sites with higher risk for disease progression. This study tested parameters to select "a priori" sites and subjects potentially at risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data from periodontal clinical examinations of 2273 subjects was used. The clinical loss of attachment was measured in 6 sites per tooth. Using computer software, the patients were distributed into 14 age groups, with intervals of 5 years, from 11 years to greater than 75 years of age. The measure of each site was compared with the average and the median values of the subject age group, with the results indicating site comparative severity (SCS). Three global parameters were calculated: parameter 1 (PI) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss > 4 mm; parameter 2 (P2) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss j> 7 mm; parameter 3 (P3) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss surpassing the median value for the age group by 100% or more. RESULTS: There were 1466 (65%) females and 807 (35%) males. Most subjects had PI, P2 and P3 values less than 30%. Parameter 3 allowed a division of the sample similar to that of Parameters 1 and 2, with the advantage of analyzing the subject in relation to his/her age group. It was suggested that the methodology of SCS is useful for selecting a population with a high disease prevalence, and that cut-off lines between 10% and 20% would be appropriate for using parameter.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of study was twofold: To determine the extent of inter valuator and inter group variation in risk scores assigned to study subjects by PRC and PRA. To explore the relationship between risk scores assigned by PRC and using the PRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 57 patients (33 male patients and 24 Female patients between 20 and 65 years age group) were assessed with PRC and PRA tools during their first visit. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We entered the resulting information in to the PRC and PRA to obtained a riskscore for each subject at first visit. The chi-square test significance between PRC and PRA is < 0.05 indicatesthe accuracy of the both tools.
