Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/48337
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVílchez Pérez, Miguel-Ángel-
dc.contributor.authorSancho Puchades, Manuel-
dc.contributor.authorValmaseda Castellón, Eduardo-
dc.contributor.authorParedes García, Jordi-
dc.contributor.authorBerini Aytés, Leonardo-
dc.contributor.authorGay Escoda, Cosme-
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-05T11:51:19Z-
dc.date.available2013-12-05T11:51:19Z-
dc.date.issued2012-03-01-
dc.identifier.issn1698-4447-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/48337-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000 adrenaline) for anterior maxillary infiltration in healthy volunteers. Material and methods: A triple-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out in 20 volunteers. A supraperiosteal buccal injection of 0.9 ml of either solution at the apex of the lateral incisor was done in 2 appointments separated 2 weeks apart. The following outcome variables were measured: latency time, anesthetic efficacy (dental pulp, keratinized gingiva, alveolar mucosa and upper lip mucosa and tissue) and the duration of anesthetic effect. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored during the procedure. Results: Latency time recorded was similar for both anesthetic solutions (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of anesthetic efficacy for dental pulp, keratinized gingiva or alveolar mucosa. Articaine had a significant higher proportion of successful anesthesia at 10 minutes after infiltration in lip mucosa and lip skin (p=0.039). The duration of anesthesia was 336 minutes for bupivacaine and 167 minutes for articaine. (p<0.001). No significant hemodynamic alterations were noted during the procedure. Conclusions: Articaine and bupivacaine exhibited similar anesthetic efficacy for maxillary infiltrations. The duration of anesthesia was longer with the bupivacaine solution, but lip anesthesia was better with articaine-
dc.format.extent6 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherMedicina Oral SL-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/medoral.17476-
dc.relation.ispartofMedicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal, 2012, vol. 17, num. 2, p. 325-330-
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/medoral.17476-
dc.rights(c) Medicina Oral SL, 2012-
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)-
dc.subject.classificationMaxil·lars-
dc.subject.classificationAnestèsia en odontologia-
dc.subject.classificationInjeccions-
dc.subject.classificationAnestèsia local-
dc.subject.classificationAmides-
dc.subject.otherJaws-
dc.subject.otherAnesthesia in dentistry-
dc.subject.otherInjections-
dc.subject.otherLocal anesthesia-
dc.subject.otherAmides-
dc.titleA prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.identifier.idgrec609676-
dc.date.updated2013-12-05T11:51:19Z-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.pmid22143708-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)
Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
609676.pdf845.8 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.