Comparison of the buccal injection versus buccal and palatal injection for extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth using 4% articaine: a split mouth study

Iyengar, Apoorva; Dugal, Arun; Ramanojam, Shandilya; Patil, Vinay; Limbhore, Mayur Vilas; Narla, B.; Mograwala, Husain

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.023

Cited by 2 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of bias (Figure 2 ) was evaluated for each study following the Cochrane guidelines [ 20 ]. Most of the studies involved randomization [ 23 , 29 , 31 , 35 - 38 , 46 - 48 , 51 , 53 ], with four exceptions [ 21 , 28 , 43 , 5 ]. Most also involved allocation concealment, again with four exceptions [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 51 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies involved randomization [ 23 , 29 , 31 , 35 - 38 , 46 - 48 , 51 , 53 ], with four exceptions [ 21 , 28 , 43 , 5 ]. Most also involved allocation concealment, again with four exceptions [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 51 ]. Blinding of the participants was done in more than half of the studies the exceptions being [ 21 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 45 - 46 , 51 ], while there was no clear blinding of the outcome in more than half the exceptions being [ 23 , 29 , 36 - 38 , 47 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most also involved allocation concealment, again with four exceptions [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 51 ]. Blinding of the participants was done in more than half of the studies the exceptions being [ 21 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 45 - 46 , 51 ], while there was no clear blinding of the outcome in more than half the exceptions being [ 23 , 29 , 36 - 38 , 47 ]. None of the studies reported observing attrition bias, reporting bias, or any other bias.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies by Lima Jr et al [ 23 ], Sandilya et al [ 37 ], Chandrasekaran et al [ 43 ], Phyo et al [ 47 ], Rayati et al [ 48 ], and Al-Mahalawy et al [ 53 ] used a double-blinded design, and that by Kumar et al [ 36 ] used a triple-blinded design. The other studies, by Bataineh et al [ 28 ], Uckan et al [ 45 ], Sochenda et al[ 46 ], and Iyengar et al [ 51 ] did not specify the design. As already noted, the ages of the participants in the included studies ranged from 12 to 84 years.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Alsager,

ALGUBEAL,

Alanazi

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of articaine for extracting upper teeth. A search of the PubMed, Ovid SP, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on August 26, 2022, based on the pre-specified question using the MeSH terms [(buccal) and (articaine) and (infiltration) and (dental)]. Of the 16 clinical trials identified involving 1,339 patients, six compared the subjective procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of articaine with that of lidocaine, three of which reported reduced pain and the other three greater success in extraction for the articaine group. Four of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with double (buccal and palatal/lingual) infiltration; two reported insignificant differences between the groups; and the other two reported greater success using buccal and palatal injections. Five of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal articaine with double buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine and reported insignificant differences. The other of the 16 studies compared the subjective pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:100:000 with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:200:000 and found a statistically significant difference. All of these studies concluded that upper permanent maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a 4% articaine buccal infiltration, but further investigation is necessary to determine whether this approach can replace the gold standard of buccal and palatal infiltration.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Alsager,

ALGUBEAL,

Alanazi

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A separate palatal LA infiltration or nerve block may be avoided using an alternative extended waiting period followed by buccal infiltration. Studies that evaluated buccal infiltration effectiveness in inducing palatal anesthesia using articaine [17][18][19][20] and lignocaine preparations [21,22] were scant. Hence, we aimed to assess buccal infiltration's efficacy with or without palatal LA injection in posterior maxillary teeth extraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration with or without Palatal Injection for Posterior Maxillary Teeth Extraction - A Split-Mouth Randomized Trial

Chatterjee

Gadicherla

Roy

et al. 2023

Pesqui. Bras. Odontopediatria Clín. Integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of posterior maxillary teeth extraction buccal infiltration with or without the use of palatal injection. Material and Methods: A total of 70 patients underwent extraction of bilateral maxillary posterior teeth under 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with 1:2,00000 adrenaline infiltration in this single-centric split-mouth randomized trial. The test side was administered with a buccal infiltration of 2 mL of anesthetic alone. An extended waiting period of 10 minutes was given before the commencement of the procedure. A standard protocol was followed for the control side. A single operator performed all extractions. Results: A total of 140 posterior maxillary teeth were extracted. Patients marked pain perception on a visual analogue scale in three different instances. During the administration of injections for the test side, the pain score was less than that of the control side and was statistically significant. The overall pain during the extraction procedure was comparable and statistically insignificant. The overall success of the method was 90%. Conclusion: Extraction of posterior maxillary teeth was feasible with a single buccal infiltration without palatal injection in most cases using an extended waiting period. Dentists can attempt extraction without palatal injections with optimal success. However, the alternate technique could be used when there is a necessity for rescue palatal anesthesia.

show abstract

Comparison of the buccal injection versus buccal and palatal injection for extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth using 4% articaine: a split mouth study

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration with or without Palatal Injection for Posterior Maxillary Teeth Extraction - A Split-Mouth Randomized Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About