华西口腔医学杂志

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

必兰浸润麻醉与利多卡因阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生齿微创拔牙术中的临床对照研究

黄元丁1 夏辉2 李晓东3 杨小竺3 裴仲秋3 夏熹4   

  1. 1.重庆医科大学附属口腔医院颌面外科, 重庆400015;2.四川大学华西口腔医院头颈肿瘤外科, 成都610041;3.重庆医科大学附属口腔医院种植科; 4.修复科, 重庆400015
  • 收稿日期:2011-06-25 修回日期:2011-06-25 出版日期:2011-06-20 发布日期:2011-06-20
  • 通讯作者: 夏熹,Tel:13883273387
  • 作者简介:黄元丁(1979—),男,重庆人,主治医师,博士

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of articaine infiltration and lidocaine blocking for microport extraction of impacted mandibular molar

HUANG Yuan-ding1, XIA Hui2, LI Xiao-dong3, YANG Xiao-zhu3, PEI Zhong-qiu3, XIA Xi4   

  1. 1. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400015, China; 2. Dept. of Head and Neck Oncology, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China; 3. Dept. of Implantology, The Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400015, China; 4. Dept. of Prosthodontics, The Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400015, China
  • Received:2011-06-25 Revised:2011-06-25 Online:2011-06-20 Published:2011-06-20
  • Contact: XIA Xi,Tel:13883273387

摘要:

目的比较必兰浸润麻醉与利多卡因阻滞麻醉法在下颌第三磨牙阻生齿微创拔牙术中的疗效。方法选择双侧阻生齿拔除患者104名,在同一患者双侧下颌分别行必兰浸润麻醉或2%利多卡因阻滞麻醉,并行高速涡轮机微创拔牙,比较2组的麻醉显效率、麻醉显效时间、术中疼痛程度和术前后收缩压差及无痛持续时间,按配对样本t检验法行统计分析。结果实验组麻醉显效率高于对照组(P=0.024)。实验组软组织麻醉显效时间和牙槽突、牙髓麻醉显效时间分别为(1.04±0.21)、(2.44±2.60)min,较对照组均有降低(P=0.002,P=0.032)。主观疼痛评分优于对照组(P=0.041)。术前后收缩压差明显小于对照组(P=0.018)。实验组无痛持续时间为(103.6±35.5)min,明显高于对照组(P=0.04)。结论必兰浸润麻醉法操作简单,显效时间快且效果可靠,是一种可在下颌第三磨牙阻生齿微创拔牙术中替代2%利多卡因阻滞的改良麻醉方法。

关键词: 阿替卡因, 浸润麻醉, 下颌阻生齿, 微创拔牙术

Abstract:

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of the infiltration anesthesia with primacaine and the nerve blocking anesthesia with lidocaine for microport extraction of impacted lower third molar. Methods 104 chosen patients had both sides of impacted lower third molars extracted in this study. Patients were given local anesthesia with either primacaine or lidocaine randomly at each side, and then underwent microport extraction. Clinical factors including effective proportion(EP), effecting time point(ETP), visual analogue scale of pain(VASp), alteration of systolic pressures( ASP) and analgesia duration(AD) were evaluated statistically by means of paired t-test. Results The EP of experimental group was higher than the control group(P=0.024). The ETP of soft tissue and alveoli-dental pulp was (1.04±0.21), (2.44±2.60)min in the experimental group, and much earlier than that of the control group(P=0.002, P=0.032). The VASp and ASP of experimental group were lower than the control group(P=0.041, P=0.018). AD was (103.6±35.5)min, and higher than the control group(P=0.04). Conclusion The infiltration anesthesia with primacaine has been proven to be a easier, reliable and quick-acting method. We suggest it an alternative method replacing the 2% lidocaine blocking during microport extraction of impacted lower third molar.

Key words: articaine, infiltration anesthesia, impacted mandibular molar, microport extraction