Publication:
Buccal infiltration injection without a 4% articaine palatal injection for maxillary impacted third molar surgery

dc.contributor.authorSom Sochendaen_US
dc.contributor.authorChakorn Vorakulpipaten_US
dc.contributor.authorK. C. Kumaren_US
dc.contributor.authorChavengkiat Saengsirinavinen_US
dc.contributor.authorManus Rojvanakarnen_US
dc.contributor.authorNatthamet Wongsirichaten_US
dc.contributor.otherWalailak Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-05T04:46:21Z
dc.date.available2020-10-05T04:46:21Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-31en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. All rights reserved. Objectives: Palatal infiltration is the most painful and uncomfortable anesthesia technique for maxillary impacted third molar surgery (MITMS). This approach could cause patients distress and aversion to dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a buccal infiltration injection without a palatal injection in MITMS. Materials and Methods: This prospective research study was a crossover split mouth-randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight healthy symmetrical bilateral MITMS patients (mean age, 23 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. Buccal infiltration injections without palatal injections were designated as the study group and the buccal with palatal infiltration cases were the control group, using 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine. The operation started after 10 minutes of infiltration. Pain assessment was done using a visual analogue scale and a numeric rating scale after each injection and extraction procedure. Similarly, the success rate, hemodynamic parameters, and additional requested local anesthetic were assessed. Results: The results showed that the pain associated with local anesthetic injections between both groups were significantly different. However, the success rates between the groups were not significantly different. Postoperative pain was not significant between both groups and a few patients requested an additional local anesthetic, but the results were not statistically significant. For hemodynamic parameters, there was a significant difference in systolic pressure during incision, bone removal, and tooth elevation. In comparison, during the incision stage there was a significant difference in diastolic pressure; however, other steps in the intervention were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: We concluded that buccal infiltration injection without palatal injection can be an alternative technique instead of the conventional injection for MITMS.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Vol.46, No.4 (2020), 250-257en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.4.250en_US
dc.identifier.issn22345930en_US
dc.identifier.issn22347550en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85091249602en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/59048
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85091249602&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectDentistryen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleBuccal infiltration injection without a 4% articaine palatal injection for maxillary impacted third molar surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85091249602&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections