Uzair Luqman1, Omer Sefvan Majeed Janjua2, Misbah Ashfaq3, Hira Irfan3, Sana Mushtaq3, Anum Bilal3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Margalla Institute of Health Sciences, Rawalpindi. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry (AFID), Rawalpindi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare single buccal articaine injection versus conventional lignocaine buccal and palatal injections for uncomplicated maxillary tooth extractions. STUDY DESIGN: Single blinded randomized control trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: The outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from February to September 2011. METHODOLOGY:Patients aged 20 - 60 years under simple extraction in the maxillary arch were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups-A and B toss method. Maxillary teeth were divided into three groups; group-1 (posterior teeth) including first, second and third molars on either side, group-2 (middle teeth) including the premolars and group-3 (anterior teeth) including incisors and canines. Group-A (study group) received buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and group-B (control group) received buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine/HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Faces Pain Scale (FPS) and a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was used for objective and subjective assessment of per operative pain respectively. RESULTS:A total of 194 patients were included in the study. Group-A comprised of 100 patients while group-B consisted of 94 patients. The mean age of the total sample was 41.12 ± 13.6 years. Statistically significant difference was found for the VAS scores of anteriors (p=0.9), premolars (p=0.2) and molars (p=0.2) for groups A and B. The FPS scores for both groups were also statistically insignificant (p=0.864). CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with a single articaine injection and lignocaine buccal and palatal infiltration were equally effective for maxillary exodontia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare single buccal articaine injection versus conventional lignocaine buccal and palatal injections for uncomplicated maxillary tooth extractions. STUDY DESIGN: Single blinded randomized control trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: The outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from February to September 2011. METHODOLOGY:Patients aged 20 - 60 years under simple extraction in the maxillary arch were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups-A and B toss method. Maxillary teeth were divided into three groups; group-1 (posterior teeth) including first, second and third molars on either side, group-2 (middle teeth) including the premolars and group-3 (anterior teeth) including incisors and canines. Group-A (study group) received buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and group-B (control group) received buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine/HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Faces Pain Scale (FPS) and a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was used for objective and subjective assessment of per operative pain respectively. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were included in the study. Group-A comprised of 100 patients while group-B consisted of 94 patients. The mean age of the total sample was 41.12 ± 13.6 years. Statistically significant difference was found for the VAS scores of anteriors (p=0.9), premolars (p=0.2) and molars (p=0.2) for groups A and B. The FPS scores for both groups were also statistically insignificant (p=0.864). CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with a single articaine injection and lignocaine buccal and palatal infiltration were equally effective for maxillary exodontia.