2026-10-19T01:06:23Zhttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/request

oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/122922026-10-18T20:36:37Zopenairedrivercom_ebyu_10000col_ebyu_10001

Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trialGülnahar, YakupAlpan, Aysan LektemurGülnahar, EvremArticainedental implantlidocainelocal anesthesiamandibular nervepain perceptionAnesthesia, DentalAnesthetics, LocalCarticaineDouble-Blind MethodHumansHypesthesiaMandibleNerve BlockPulpitisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiclocal anesthetic agentArticlebone densitychi square testfemalehumaninferior alveolar nervemajor clinical studymalemandibular canalmiddle agednociceptionoperation durationparesthesiaBackground: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine on inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for implant surgery in the posterior mandible. Material and Methods: The patients who have inserted implants in the posterior mandible were divided into 2 groups for IANB: lidocaine and articaine. VAS = visual analog scale, pain during surgery and injection, lip numbness time, mandibular canal-implant apex distance, age, gender, bone density, implant number, release incision, adjacent teeth, and duration of surgery were analyzed using t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's coefficient, and, Pearson's chi-squared test. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials. Results: 577 patients were included and 1185 dental implants were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of injection and surgery VAS values (p>0.05). The lip numbness time of lido-caine was 3.06±3.22min while articaine was found to be 2.96±3.09min (p>0.05). Mandibular canal-implant apex distance was found to be 2.28±0.75mm in the articaine and 2.45±0.86mm in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). Release incision was made more in the articaine group (51/252) than in the lidocaine group (40/325) (p<0.05). Conclusions: There was no difference between the %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine in terms of pain perception in posterior mandible implant applications. Both anesthetics provided adequate anesthesia for implant application. © Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F. BMedicina Oral S.L.2023Articlehttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/12292https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.254751698-4447enMedicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucalinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/ebyu/12292