Article Sidebar
Published:
May 11, 2023Keywords:
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Comparison of nerve block anesthesia and local infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine hydrochloride in primary root canal treatment of mandibular molars
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate and compare the analgesic effects of nerve block anesthesia and local infiltration anesthesia in one-visit root canal therapy of mandibular molars.
Methods: A total of 120 patients who underwent one-visit root canal therapy for mandibular molars were divided into nerve block group (n = 76) and local infiltration group (n = 44). Lidocaine was used to anesthetize the two groups. Perioperative heart rate (HR), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were determined in the two groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Ramsay sedation scale were used to assess postoperative pain and sedation in the two groups. The occurrence of adverse reactions was also compared.
Results: The success rate of the anesthesia in the nerve block group was significantly higher than that in local infiltration group (9 7.37 vs 88.64 %; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in HR, DBP and SBP levels between the two groups. Over time, VAS and Ramsay scores decreased in both groups, while the VAS and Ramsay scores in the nerve block group were significantly lower than those in the local infiltration group (p < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the nerve block group was 5.26 %, which was not significantly different from 13.64 % incidence rate in local infiltration group (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Both anesthesia methods have little effect on hemodynamics in patients undergoing one-visit root canal therapy for mandibular molars, but lidocaine nerve block anesthesia is more effective and has stronger analgesic and sedative effects than lidocaine local infiltration anesthesia.
