L-Arterenol as a Vasoconstrictor in Local Anesthesia

AimsThe periodontal ligament injection in isolated areas of the mandible was clinically evaluated using only a conventional dental cartridge syringe. Materials and Methods: One hundred subjects requiring extractions of either premolars or molars participated in the study. Results: A high percentage of success rate (85%) was achieved but with unfavorable comment from the patient in regard to a painful injection. Duration of surgical anesthesia following the injection proved to be adequate in almost all extractions performed. Conclusions: New devices for performing this injection appear to have some advantage over the conventional syringe technique. However, these devices were unfortunately unavailable at the area of study. Further studies are recommended to further evaluate its success and also to determine the response of both the periodontal ligament and pulpal tissue in cases were restorative treatment of teeth is to be undertaken for example crowns, bridges and fillings.

Section: Materialsand Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Evaluation of the Periodontal Ligament Injection

Hamid¹

2012

“…Pain grade scale during the surgical procedure was evaluated according to the Dobb and Devier System. (12) 1. Grade A anesthesia: No pain entirely on surgery 2.…”

Section: The Patient Had No Previous Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Clinical Evaluation on Three Maxillary Nerve Block Techniques of Local Anesthesia in Minor Oral Surgery

Hamid¹

2012

“…Adequate surgical anesthesia necessary to perform a painless extraction was evaluated according to the Dobb and Devier Sys-tem (13) which is as follows: Grade A anesthesia: No pain completely on extraction. Grade B anesthesia: Mild to moderate tolerable pain.…”

Section: Figure: Single Buccal Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Buccal Injection for Anesthesia of Upper First Molar

Hamid¹,

Fathi²,

Suleiman³

2008

Aims:A clinical trial was carried out to assess the efficiency of a single buccal injection to achieve anesthesia of the buccal aspect of the upper first molar instead of the traditional two injections. Materials and Methods: The subjects included in the clinical assessment were those needing extraction of an upper first molar of either side. For the purpose of comparison, the sample was randomly divided into two main groups: Group I (control group) which included 100 subjects who were to receive two buccal injections and a single palatal injection before extraction. While Group II (trial group) included 100 subjects who were to receive a single buccal injection and a single palatal injection before extraction. The following data were recorded: Pain on needle insertion, pain on deposition of solution, onset of surgical anesthesia and adequate surgical anesthesia. Results: The first criterion recorded was pain on needle insertion where the results showed no significant difference between both groups. The second criterion was pain on deposition of solution. Here the results also showed no significant difference between both groups in this aspect. For onset of surgical anesthesia, no significant difference was shown between both groups. In regard to pain grade experienced during surgery for both groups, the results showed that grade A anesthesia was recorded in 95% of patients in group I , whereas in 93% of patients in group II. Grade B anesthesia was recorded in 5% of patients in group I and in 7% of patients in group II. Statistically speaking, no significant difference was disclosed in regard to pain assessed during the extraction of the tooth between both groups. Conclusions: The achievement of successful local anesthesia is a continual challenge in dentistry. Any suggested new approach for achieving adequate anesthesia for either the maxilla or mandible as long as it is safe and effective can be recommended for routine dental care.