No abstract

Aims:To investigate the efficacy of dried gamma-irradiated amniotic membrane dressing for the healing of full-thickness skin wounds, using a rabbit model. Materials and Methods: This study was performed in the Oral and

Purpose: To investigate the anesthetic effectiveness of buccal infiltration (BI) versus buccal plus lingual infiltration (BI+LI) of 4% articaine for intra-alveolar extraction of erupted mandibular molar teeth Material and Methods: Eighty patients were included in this prospective clinical study. They were randomly divided into 1 of 2 equal groups: the 1st group received BI of 4% articaine 1.8 ml and LI of 0.5 ml, while the 2nd group received 4% articaine 1.8 ml BI plus 0.5 ml LI of normal saline. Another 1.8 ml articaine BI was given if initial anesthesia was inadequate. Outcome variables included pain, which was rated by patients at 3 intervals using visual analogue scale, and lingual anesthesia and patients' satisfaction which were measured using 5-score verbal rating scale. Data analyses used were descriptive statistics, t test, χ2 test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient. P-value value less than 0.05 was considered significant Results: There were 46 females and 34 males and the mean age was 35.3 years. All outcome variables were comparable between the two study groups (p˃0.05). Anesthesia was successful in 78% and 88% of cases in the (BI) and (BI+LI) groups respectively with no significant difference (p=0.2392). The mean articaine volume used was 2.5 ml and 2.87 ml respectively without significant difference (p=0.090). Conclusion: The anesthetic efficacy of (BI) alone and (BI+LI) of 4% articaine was comparable. When given in an adequate dose, articaine (BI) alone could be justified as an anesthetic option for the intra-alveolar extraction of mandibular molar teeth.

Purpose/objectives: To assess the clinical performance of undergraduate dental students in delivering inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with either articaine or lidocaine, and to compare the success rate of their IANBs between articaine and lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular molar teeth. Methods:In this clinical trial, patients were randomly distributed into 2 study groups: articaine and lidocaine groups. In each group, dental students performed IANB followed by forceps extraction of 1 mandibular molar under close supervision. The operative parameters measured included: assessment of anesthetic technique (on 10 points visual analogue scale 'VAS-10′), onset and depth of anesthesia, intra-operative pain perceived by patients and their satisfaction level (on VAS-10), and the success rate of IANB (in terms of need to additional anesthesia). Data analyses used were descriptive statistics, t-test, χ 2 test, and Pearson's correlation.Results: One-hundred sixty patients were included in the final analysis, 80 in each group. The overall students' IANB technique was assessed as good (mean score 7.3). Articaine group showed significantly higher success rate of IANB (71%) compared to (55%) in lidocaine group, (P = 0.03). Patients also reported significantly higher satisfaction scores in the articaine group (P = 0.04). There were no significant difference in the onset of action and intra-operative pain level between the 2 groups.Conclusions: Students' IANBs were generally assessed as "good." Articaine IANBs performed by undergraduate students showed significantly higher success rate than lidocaine IANBs. By using articaine, the anesthetic achievement was greater for mandibular molar extraction performed by undergraduate students.

No abstract