Bupivacaine 0.5 % versus articaine 4 % for the removal of lower third molars. A crossover randomized controlled trial

Objective: To compare the anesthetic action of 0.5% bupivacaine in relation to 4% articaine, both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, in the surgical removal of lower third molars. As a secondary objective hemodynamic changes using both anesthetics were analyzed.Study Design: Triple-blind crossover randomized clinical trial. Eighteen patients underwent bilateral removal of impacted lower third molars using 0.5% bupivacaine or 4% articaine in two different appointments. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables were recorded. Differences were assessed with McNemar tests and repeated measures ANOVA tests. Results: Both solutions exhibited similar latency times and intraoperative efficacy. Statistical significant lower pain levels were observed with bupivacaine between the fifth (p=0.011) and the ninth (p=0.007) postoperative hours. Bupivacaine provided significantly longer lasting soft tissue anesthesia (p<0.05). Systolic blood pressure and heart rate values were significantly higher with articaine.Conclusions: Bupivacaine could be a valid alternative to articaine especially due to its early postoperative pain prevention ability (AU)

No disponible

A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations

Objectives: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000adrenaline) for anterior maxillary infiltration in healthy volunteers. Material and methods: A triple-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out in 20 volunteers. A supraperiosteal buccal injection of 0.9 ml of either solution at the apex of the lateral incisor was done in 2 appointments separated 2 weeks apart. The following outcome variables were measured: latency time, anesthetic efficacy(dental pulp, keratinized gingiva, alveolar mucosa and upper lip mucosa and tissue) and the duration of anesthetic effect. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored during the procedure. Results: Latency time recorded was similar for both anesthetic solutions (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of anesthetic efficacy for dental pulp, keratinized gingiva or alveolar mucosa. Articaine had a significant higher proportion of successful anesthesia at 10 minutes after infiltration in lip mucosa and lip skin (p=0.039). The duration of anesthesia was 336 minutes for bupivacaine and 167 minutes for articaine. (p<0.001). No significant hemodynamic alterations were noted during the procedure. Conclusions: Articaine and bupivacaine exhibited similar anesthetic efficacy for maxillary infiltrations. The duration of anesthesia was longer with the bupivacaine solution, but lip anesthesia was better with articaine (AU)

Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars. A crossover randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the anesthetic action of 0.5% bupivacaine in relation to 4% articaine, both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, in the surgical removal of lower third molars. As a secondary objective hemodynamic changes using both anesthetics were analyzed. STUDY DESIGN: Triple-blind crossover randomized clinical trial. Eighteen patients underwent bilateral removal of impacted lower third molars using 0.5% bupivacaine or 4% articaine in two different appointments. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables were recorded. Differences were assessed with McNemar tests and repeated measures ANOVA tests. RESULTS: Both solutions exhibited similar latency times and intraoperative efficacy. Statistical significant lower pain levels were observed with bupivacaine between the fifth (p=0.011) and the ninth (p=0.007) postoperative hours. Bupivacaine provided significantly longer lasting soft tissue anesthesia (p<0.5). Systolic blood pressure and heart rate values were significantly higher with articaine. CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine could be a valid alternative to articaine especially due to its early postoperative pain prevention ability.

Wearability and physiological effects of custom-fitted vs self-adapted mouthguards.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to measure the comfort, wearability, physiological effects and its influence on athletes' physical performance, of custom-fitted compared with self-adapted mouthguards (MGs). METHODS: Eleven rugby players were put under specific efforts similar to those of the competition. Each player made three consecutive tests randomly wearing a commercially available 'boil-and-bite' self-adapted mouthguard (MG2), a custom-fitted mouthguard (MG3), and no mouthguard (reference). Forced expiratory air volume at 1 s (FEV(1)), expiratory flow rates peak (PEF), forced vital capacity (FVC), rebound (RB) jump 15 s, and counter-movement jump (CMJ) were measured on each player before and after the training exercise tests. Subjective evaluations by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire took place. Comforts, adaptability, stability, tiredness, thirst, oral dryness, nausea, ability to talk, breathe, and drink were evaluated. RESULTS: The wearing of the self-adapted MG showed significant improvement in PEF (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significance differences regarding the others spirometer parameters. In CMJ, there were no differences between both the MGs. On RB power was similar with both MGs and control. However, RB height reduced significantly wearing MGs. MG3 showed superior properties in comfort, adaptability, stability, and ability to talk and to breathe. CONCLUSIONS: MG3 showed the smallest range of changes in players' performance, suggesting improved fit, comfort, and acceptation compared with MG2. Furthermore, its greatest advantage is the individualized design according to the proper anatomy of the oral cavity. Greater efforts must be made to improve the comfort of MGs if their use is to be increased.

Analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.

OBJECTIVE: An evaluation is made of the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen after impacted lower third molar surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (ibuprofen or diclofenac). The difficulty of third molar surgery, performed under local anesthesia, was assessed by the degree of inclusion involved. The recorded study variables were pain intensity and the need for rescue medication during one week. The recordings were made once a day at the same time, using a patient-completed questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were finally included in the study (87.1%). The results were similar in the first 48 postoperative hours in both groups, though on the third day the diclofenac group tended to show higher pain scores--the differences being nonsignificant, however (p<0.05). This tendency was also reflected by an increased need for rescue medication and the consumption of a larger number of tablets in the diclofenac group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy between diclofenac sodium and ibuprofen, though the former was associated with an increased need for supplementary medication in the first two postoperative days (p<0.05).

Eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico vs. ibuprofeno después de la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior incluido / Analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars

-Objetivo: En este estudio evaluamos la eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico en comparación con el ibuprofeno, después de la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior incluido. -Diseño de estudio: Los pacientes que participaron en el estudio fueron distribuidos de forma aleatoria en dos grupos. Uno fue el grupo ibuprofeno y el otro el grupo diclofenaco. La intervención practicada fue la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior cuya dificultad fue determinada en función del grado de inclusión en todos los pacientes. Las variables registradas fueron la intensidad del dolor y la necesidad de medicación de rescate durante un periodo de una semana. Los registros se realizaron una vez al día a la misma hora y registrados en un cuaderno por parte del paciente. -Resultados: Un total de 81 pacientes (87.1%) fueron incluidos en el estudio. Los valores fueron similares en las primeras 48 horas postoperatorias, pero a partir del tercer día existió una tendencia del grupo diclofenaco a mostrar valores de dolor superiores, aunque sin llegar a existir diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p>0.05). Esta tendencia a presentar mayor dolor durante el periodo postoperatorio en el grupo diclofenaco también se vio reflejada en el requerimiento del analgésico de rescate y en el número de comprimidos empleados. -Conclusiones: No se evidenciaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en cuanto a la eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico respecto al ibuprofeno, aunque sí pudo observarse una mayor tendencia hacia la necesidad de más medicación suplementaria durante los 2 primeros días del postoperatorio en el grupo diclofenaco pero sin adquirir significación estadística (p>0.05) (AU)

-Objective: An evaluation is made of the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen after impacted lower third molar surgery. -Study design: The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (ibuprofen or diclofenac). The difficulty of third molar surgery, performed under local anesthesia, was assessed by the degree of inclusion involved. The recorded study variables were pain intensity and the need for rescue medication during one week. The recordings were made once a day at the same time, using a patient-completed questionnaire. -Results: Eighty-one patients were finally included in the study (87.1%). The results were similar in the first 48 postoperative hours in both groups, though on the third day the diclofenac group tended to show higher pain scores - the differences being nonsignificant, however (p>0.05). This tendency was also reflected by an increased need for rescue medication and the consumption of a larger number of tablets in the diclofenac group. -Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy between diclofenac sodium and ibuprofen, though the former was associated with an increased need for supplementary medication in the first two postoperative days (p>0.05) (AU)