OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate whether articaine/HCl administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal provided favorable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection, for a surgical procedure. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 71 patients for removal of bilateral permanent maxillary teeth were enrolled in the present study. For the experimental side, 1.7 mL of 4% articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. After 5 minutes, tooth extraction was performed. On the control side a similar protocol was applied with the addition of a palatal injection. All patients completed a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Response Scale (VRS) after both injection and then extraction, respectively. RESULTS: According to the VAS scores, the pain of injection between buccal infiltration without a separate palatal injection and routine administration with additional palatal injection was statistically significant (P < .05). However, the VAS scores for permanent maxillary tooth removal showed no significant difference between the 2 types of injection (P > .05). All patients described both extractions as "acceptable" and no patient requested an additional palatal injection to ensure comfortable extraction. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate whether articaine/HCl administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal provided favorable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection, for a surgical procedure. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 71 patients for removal of bilateral permanent maxillary teeth were enrolled in the present study. For the experimental side, 1.7 mL of 4% articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. After 5 minutes, tooth extraction was performed. On the control side a similar protocol was applied with the addition of a palatal injection. All patients completed a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Response Scale (VRS) after both injection and then extraction, respectively. RESULTS: According to the VAS scores, the pain of injection between buccal infiltration without a separate palatal injection and routine administration with additional palatal injection was statistically significant (P < .05). However, the VAS scores for permanent maxillary tooth removal showed no significant difference between the 2 types of injection (P > .05). All patients described both extractions as "acceptable" and no patient requested an additional palatal injection to ensure comfortable extraction. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.
Authors: Klinger de Souza Amorim; Vanessa Tavares da Silva; Rafael Soares da Cunha; Maria Luisa Silveira Souto; Carla Rocha São Mateus; Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza Journal: Case Rep Dent Date: 2015-02-01