Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To analyze the side effects and complications following intraosseous anesthesia (IA), comparing them with those of the conventional oral anesthesia techniques.
Material And Method: A simple-blind, prospective clinical study was carried out. Each patient underwent two anesthetic techniques: conventional (local infiltration and locoregional anesthetic block) and intraosseous, for respective dental operations. In order to allow comparison of IA versus conventional anesthesia, the two operations were similar and affected the same two teeth in opposite quadrants. Heart rate was recorded in all cases before injection of the anesthetic solution and again 30 seconds after injection. The complications observed after anesthetic administration were recorded.
Results: A total of 200 oral anesthetic procedures were carried out in 100 patients. Both IA and conventional anesthesia resulted in a significant increase in heart rate, though the increase was greater with the latter technique. Incidents were infrequent with either anesthetic technique, with no significant differences between them. Regarding the complications, there were significant differences in pain at the injection site, with more intense pain in the case of IA (x2=3.532, p=0.030, Φ2=0.02), while the limitation of oral aperture was more pronounced with conventional anesthesia (x2=5.128, p<0.05, Φ2=0.014). Post-anesthetic biting showed no significant differences (x2=4.082, p=0.121, Φ2=0.009).
Conclusions: Both anesthetic techniques significantly increased heart rate, and IA caused comparatively more pain at the injection site, while limited oral aperture was more frequent with conventional anesthesia. Post-anesthetic biting showed no significant differences between the two techniques.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476103 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17512 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!