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

dc.contributor.author
Vílchez Pérez, Miguel-Ángel
dc.contributor.author
Sancho Puchades, Manuel
dc.contributor.author
Valmaseda Castellón, Eduardo
dc.contributor.author
Paredes García, Jordi
dc.contributor.author
Berini Aytés, Leonardo
dc.contributor.author
Gay Escoda, Cosme
dc.date.issued
2013-12-05T11:51:19Z
dc.date.issued
2013-12-05T11:51:19Z
dc.date.issued
2012-03-01
dc.date.issued
2013-12-05T11:51:19Z
dc.identifier
1698-4447
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/48337
dc.identifier
609676
dc.identifier
22143708
dc.description.abstract
Objectives: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000 adrenaline) 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
dc.format
6 p.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
Medicina Oral SL
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/medoral.17476
dc.relation
Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal, 2012, vol. 17, num. 2, p. 325-330
dc.relation
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/medoral.17476
dc.rights
(c) Medicina Oral SL, 2012
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)
dc.subject
Maxil·lars
dc.subject
Anestèsia en odontologia
dc.subject
Injeccions
dc.subject
Anestèsia local
dc.subject
Amides
dc.subject
Jaws
dc.subject
Anesthesia in dentistry
dc.subject
Injections
dc.subject
Local anesthesia
dc.subject
Amides
dc.title
A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Fitxers en aquest element

FitxersGrandàriaFormatVisualització

No hi ha fitxers associats a aquest element.

Aquest element apareix en la col·lecció o col·leccions següent(s)