Comparison of the buccal injection versus buccal and palatal injection for extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth using 4% articaine: a split mouth study
In spite of the development of modern injection techniques, palatal injection is still a painful experience for patients. A plethora of techniques has been tested to reduce this. One such technique that has been claimed to work is administering articaine on the buccal side alone for the extraction o...
Saved in:
| Published in: | British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery Vol. 59; no. 3; pp. 281 - 285 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Scotland
Elsevier Ltd
01-04-2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In spite of the development of modern injection techniques, palatal injection is still a painful experience for patients. A plethora of techniques has been tested to reduce this. One such technique that has been claimed to work is administering articaine on the buccal side alone for the extraction of maxillary teeth due to its ability to diffuse through soft and hard tissues more reliably than other local anaesthetics. This split mouth study evaluated the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100000 adrenaline to avoid the painful palatal injection for bilateral permanent maxillary tooth extraction in 50 patients. The 100mm 10 point Visual Analog Scale/Wong Baker Facial Pain Scale was used to rate the amount of pain felt on injection, on probing the tissues prior to, or during, extraction, and one hour postoperatively. Although the buccal injection alone resulted in lower pain while injecting the anaesthetic, it did not result in the absence of pain before tooth extraction as has been suggested by various studies. A total of 74% patients required a palatal injection on the study side. We conclude that in most cases, when using a buccal injection alone, one cannot rely on the diffusion of articaine for effective palatal anaesthesia. Despite this, we suggest that as an initial option in young patients, the operator can consider avoiding the painful palatal injection by the use of articaine to prevent aversion to dental treatment. Postoperatively, the difference in pain levels was not statistically significant and no patient showed signs of lesions at the injection sites. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0266-4356 1532-1940 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.023 |