ANESTHETIC EFFICACY OF INFILTRATION ANESTHESIA AND INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK ANESTHESIA IN SURGICAL REMOVAL OF IMPACTED MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLARS IN CAN THO IN 2019-2020
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars is one of the most common procedures performed in oral surgery. Recently, buccal infiltration anesthesia with Articaine in mandibular posterior region has proved equivalent anesthetic efficacy compared to inferior alveolar nerve block with Lidocaine in anesthesia for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Objectives: To evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of infiltration anesthesia vs inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. Materials and method: Cross-sectional study on two groups of impacted mandibular third molars. Results: The highest rate of surgical extraction difficulty was among the least difficult group (76.9%). The success rate of pain-free or mild pain after buccal infiltration with Articaine 4% was 100% (n=31/31), whereas by using inferior alveolar nerve block with Lidocaine 2% was 96.8% (n=30/31). Conclusion: Infiltration anesthesia with 4% Articaine with supplemental lingual anesthesia can be a good option during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar.
Keywords
impacted mandibular third molar, infiltration anesthesia, inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
2. El-Kholey K.E. (2017), “Anesthetic Efficacy of 4 % Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques”, J Maxillofac Oral Surg., 16(1), pp 90–95.
3. El-Kholey K.E. (2013), “Infiltration Anesthesia for extraction of the Mandibular Molars”, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 71(10), pp 1658-1658.
4. Kamonpun S. (2017), “Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retromolar area for lower third molar surgery”, J Dent Anesth Pain Med., 17(2), pp 121-127.
5. Kanaa M.D. et al. (2006), “Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study, J Endod., 32, pp 296-298.
6. Kaur H. et al. (2017), “Articaine vs Lidocaine in Removal of Third Molar Surgery: A Clinical Study”, International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research, 4(9), pp 1889-1891.
7. Kaufman E. et al (2005), “A survey of pain, pressure and discomfort induced by commonly oral local anesthesia injections”, Anesth Prog., 52(4), pp 122–127.
8. Malamed S.F. (2013), Handbook of Local Anesthesia, 6th edition, Mosby Elsevier, Missouri, pp 226-227.
9. Meechan J.G. (2010), “Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible”, Dent Clin N Am., 54, pp 621-629.
10. Nikil K.J. et al. (2016), “Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine during the surgical removal of the third molar: A comparative prospective study”, Anesth Essays Res., 10(2), pp 356–361.
11. Poorni S. et al. (2011), “Anesthetic efficacy of four percent articaine for pulpal anesthesia by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial”, J Endod., 37(12), pp 1603-1607.
12. Phyo H.E. (2016), “Comparative Study of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lignocaine in Mandibular First Molars”, Myanmar Dental Journal 2016, pp 36-43.
13. Skjevik A.A. et al. (2011), “Intramolecular hydrogen bonding in articaine can be related to superior bone tissue penetration: A molecular dynamics study”, Biophysical Chemistry, 154(1), pp 18-25.
14. Vashistha A. et al. (2016), “Use of 4% articaine (with 1:100,000 epinephrine) as buccal infiltration in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar”, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 8(4), pp 738-743.