Background: Many dentists use articaine as their choice of local anesthetic agent. However, the use of articaine is limited to inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs), and literature data are scarce concerning its perception and choice among various dental practitioners.
Aim:The aim of the present study was to assess the extent of articaine use as a local anesthetic in dentistry, its perception basis, and the consistency of evidence of the efficacy and safety of articaine in recent practice.
Methods:The present study utilized a survey tool that was given to all the participating dental practitioners, and the participants were given five minutes to fill out the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was in English and had 14 questions to be answered. The data gathered were statistically assessed to formulate the results.
Results:The results of this cross-sectional survey reported that articaine is used as a choice of local anesthetic by more than half of the participating dental practitioners. Sixty percent (n = 480) participants used articaine in their practice, followed by lidocaine, which was used by 33% (n = 264) dental practitioners, mepivacaine by 2% (n = 16) participants, prilocaine by 1% (n = 8) dental practitioners, and other local anesthetics by 4% (n = 32) participants, respectively. Concerning the safety and efficacy of articaine use, 43% used it for all procedures except for IANBs, whereas 20% used it for all procedures, including IANBs.
Conclusion:Despite the reported efficacy and safety of articaine as a local anesthetic for all dental procedures, many dental practitioners refrain from using it, especially for IANBs. These data depict a difference between current research evidence and reported clinical practice.
Purpose
To determine whether there is any benefit in diagnostic accuracy, reduction in
periprocedural complications, when image-guided biopsies are performed by
interventional radiologist as compared to a general radiologist or other physician
without prior special interventional training.
Patients and Methods
This study is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients that underwent
imaging-guided core biopsies during one year in our hospital. Information collected
included: patient age, gender, coagulation status, organ biopsied, imaging modality
and equipment used, number of samples obtained, post-biopsy complications,
histopathological results, and previous interventional training of a physician performing
the biopsy. The quantitative data from patient charts was analyzed using a statistical
program, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Results
449 patients were included in this study: 132 were performed using Computed
Tomography guidance and 317 were performed under ultrasound guidance.
The success rate of core biopsies was compared between different specialists, and
was measured based on periprocedural complications, necessity of medical
intervention and/or hospitalization after biopsy procedure, true positive histopathology
results, and need to perform repeat biopsy of the same lesion owing to inconclusive
results. Overall, IR had a success rate of 88.13%, non-IR had a success rate of
61.07%, and nephrologists had a success rate of 77.65%. The post biopsy
complication rates were 5.48%, 27.52%, and 17.65% for procedures performed by IR,
non-IR, and nephrologists respectively.
Conclusion
Our study shows an overall higher success rate and improved patient outcome when
image guided biopsies were performed by IR, as compared to other non-IR physicians.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.