Gülnahar, Yakup; Alpan, Aysan Lektemur; Gülnahar, Evrem

Background: 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.

Gulnahar, Yakup; Alpan, Aysan Lektemur

Background: The extraction of impacted third molar teeth is a common procedure in maxillofacial surgery. The aim of this study was to compare of piezoelectric surgical technique with the one with conventional rotary instruments in terms of edema, trismus and pain, in mandibular third molar surgery. Material and Methods: 20 individuals with symmetrically impacted lower mandibular third molars and 40 teeth were included in the study. Third molars on the left side of each patient were removed with piezosurgery, while the counterparts on the right side were removed with conventional rotary instruments. Postoperatively, the same antibiotic, analgesic, and mouthwash were recommended to both groups. Ultrasound, edema, trismus measurements were performed before surgery, postoperative, postoperative day 2 and postoperative day 7. VAS scale was used to evaluate the pain. Results: The average age of 20 individuals included in the study was found to be 21.85 ± 3.08 years. The operation time of the individuals who underwent the surgery with conventional rotary instruments was found to be 12 minutes 31.70 ± 167.03 seconds, and the operation time in the Piezosurgery group was 19 minutes 10.60 ± 306.59 seconds. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of trismus, edema, and pain. Conclusions: Piezosurgery is a safe method that can be used in molar removal, but in this split-mouth study, it is not found advantageous in terms of postoperative morbidity due to the longer working time compared to the one performed with conventional rotary instruments.