header
Image from OpenLibrary

Anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars : A randomized clinical trial / Mohamed Fouad Elmarakby ; Supervised Manar Yehia Fouda , Marwa Mahmoud Bedier

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Mohamed Fouad Elmarakby , 2017Description: 103 P. : charts ; 25cmOther title:
  • فاعلية تخدير 2% مبيفاكين مقابل 4% ارتيكين في احصار العصب السنخي السفلي في المرضي ذوي التهاب اللب غير الردود في أضراس الفك السفلي : تجربة سريرية بالانتقاء العشوائي [Added title page title]
Subject(s): Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also as CD
Dissertation note: Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Endodontics Summary: Objectives: The aim of this prospective randomized clinical trial was compare between 2% Mepivacaine and 4% Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars as regards to their anesthetic efficiency; during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-six patients diagnosed clinically and radiographically with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth received single-visit root canal treatment using ProTaper Universal rotary system for canal preparation, they were randomly divided into two groups (n=33) according to the anesthetic solution used, either Group M (3.6 ml Mepivacaine hydrochloride 2% with 1:100000 epinephrine) or Group A (3.4 ml Articaine hydrochloride 4% with 1:100000 epinephrine). The pain was assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) during access cavity preparation and instrumentation, then the need for supplemental anesthesia was also recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in pain level between both groups at the different observation times. The success rates were similar in both groups (39.4% and 45.5% in Mepivacaine and Articaine groups respectively) with no difference in the need for supplemental anesthesia in both groups. Conclusion: The anesthetic efficacy of Mepivacaine and Articaine seemed to be similar, although both did not provide acceptable rate of anesthetic success
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Home library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Thesis Thesis قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.02.M.Sc.2017.Mo.A (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Not for loan 01010110075637000
CD - Rom CD - Rom مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.02.M.Sc.2017.Mo.A (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 75637.CD Not for loan 01020110075637000

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Endodontics

Objectives: The aim of this prospective randomized clinical trial was compare between 2% Mepivacaine and 4% Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars as regards to their anesthetic efficiency; during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-six patients diagnosed clinically and radiographically with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth received single-visit root canal treatment using ProTaper Universal rotary system for canal preparation, they were randomly divided into two groups (n=33) according to the anesthetic solution used, either Group M (3.6 ml Mepivacaine hydrochloride 2% with 1:100000 epinephrine) or Group A (3.4 ml Articaine hydrochloride 4% with 1:100000 epinephrine). The pain was assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS) during access cavity preparation and instrumentation, then the need for supplemental anesthesia was also recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in pain level between both groups at the different observation times. The success rates were similar in both groups (39.4% and 45.5% in Mepivacaine and Articaine groups respectively) with no difference in the need for supplemental anesthesia in both groups. Conclusion: The anesthetic efficacy of Mepivacaine and Articaine seemed to be similar, although both did not provide acceptable rate of anesthetic success

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.