K Yilmaz1, U Tunga2, T Ozyurek2. 1. Çorum Oral and Dental Health Center, Çorum, Turkey. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and buccal infiltration anesthesia of mandibular second premolar with irreversible pulpitis and to evaluate the level of patient discomfort with these methods. MATHERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients, who had irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular 2nd premolar teeth, were included in the study. Patients were randomly distributed in two groups. In one group IANB, in the other group buccal infiltration anesthesia were performed. The efficacy of these two different anesthesia techniques on the related teeth was investigated with the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. In addition, with a pulse oximetry device, the changes in the patients' heart rates were compared between the groups. The obtained data were evaluated statistically. RESULTS: Both anesthesia techniques reduced the pain significantly in patients before the administration (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference among the groups regarding the pain control and success rates of anesthesia (P > 0.05). Both of the anesthesia techniques increased the heart rate (P < 0.05). The increase in the heart rate of the patients was significantly higher in the buccal infiltration anesthesia group than the other anesthesia group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this in vivo study, there was no difference between the efficacies of the buccal infiltration anesthesia and IANB anesthesia in the mandibular 2nd premolar teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Buccal infiltration anesthesia caused more discomfort in the patients compared with the IANB during the administration.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and buccal infiltration anesthesia of mandibular second premolar with irreversible pulpitis and to evaluate the level of patient discomfort with these methods. MATHERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients, who had irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular 2nd premolar teeth, were included in the study. Patients were randomly distributed in two groups. In one group IANB, in the other group buccal infiltration anesthesia were performed. The efficacy of these two different anesthesia techniques on the related teeth was investigated with the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. In addition, with a pulse oximetry device, the changes in the patients' heart rates were compared between the groups. The obtained data were evaluated statistically. RESULTS: Both anesthesia techniques reduced the pain significantly in patients before the administration (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference among the groups regarding the pain control and success rates of anesthesia (P > 0.05). Both of the anesthesia techniques increased the heart rate (P < 0.05). The increase in the heart rate of the patients was significantly higher in the buccal infiltration anesthesia group than the other anesthesia group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this in vivo study, there was no difference between the efficacies of the buccal infiltration anesthesia and IANB anesthesia in the mandibular 2nd premolar teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Buccal infiltration anesthesia caused more discomfort in the patients compared with the IANB during the administration.
Entities:
Keywords:
Efficacy of the anesthesia; Heft–Parker visual analog scale; infiltration anesthesia; pulse oximetry