Publication: The Efficacy of Two Different Concentrations of Local Anaesthetic on Pain in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
22317163
18238602
18238602
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85099154278
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Archives of Orofacial Sciences. Vol.15, No.2 (2020), 159-173
Suggested Citation
Thippayarat Piernon, Basel Mahardawi, Kumar KC, Chakorn Vorakulpipat, Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai, Natthamet Wongsirichat The Efficacy of Two Different Concentrations of Local Anaesthetic on Pain in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery. Archives of Orofacial Sciences. Vol.15, No.2 (2020), 159-173. doi:10.21315/AOS2020.15.2.455 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/60922
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
The Efficacy of Two Different Concentrations of Local Anaesthetic on Pain in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
http://aos.usm.my/ © Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. 2020 Mepivacaine is a common local anaesthetic used with claims of a high safety profile. There are two commercial types, 2% mepivacaine with vasoconstrictor and 3% without vasoconstrictor. There are many suggestions regarding the usage of plain 3% without vasoconstrictor for systemic medical problems, however, there have not been any previous studies to confirm this necessity in impacted lower third molar surgery (ILTMS). This study aims to evaluate the anaesthetic efficiency and the effect on the patient of 2% and 3% mepivacaine, adding vasoconstrictor to the 3% mepivacaine. This crossover study comprised of 24 patients with bilateral, symmetrically positioned, impacted lower third molars. Patients received either 2% or 3% mepivacaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Onset and duration of anaesthesia, and haemodynamic considerations were analysed as primary outcomes. Furthermore, pain, duration of postoperative anaesthesia and pulp vitality were analysed as secondary outcomes. Different concentrations of mepivacaine showed similar anaesthetic onset time (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the duration of anaesthesia, as well as the postoperative analgesia (p > 0.05). The two concentrations did not lead to any haemodynamic changes or complications during ILTMS. Thus, adding the vasoconstrictor to mepivacaine 3% did not cause any adverse effects on the patients intra or postoperatively. Therefore, it is possible for dentists to use only 2% mepivacaine with vasoconstrictor for IANB effectively and safely when the case necessitates the need for a vasoconstrictor, or in other words, longer duration of haemostasis.