• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.221-231
• /
• 2018

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effects of three interventions on pain, blood pressure, and pulse rate during infiltration anesthesia in patients about to undergo gamma knife surgeries. Methods: The three interventions employed in a university-affiliated Hospital in J City, South Korea were as follows: EMLA cream plus Vapocoolant spray (Vapocoolant, n=30), EMLA cream plus 10.0% Lidocaine spray (Lidocaine, n=30), and EMLA cream only (EMLA, n=30). The equivalent control-group pre test - post test study design was used. Pain was assessed subjectively using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and objectively using a Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) tester. NRS scores were assessed after infiltration anesthesia and the GSR was assessed during infiltration anesthesia. Blood pressure and pulse rate were assessed twice: before and after infiltration anesthesia. Data were collected between August 3, 2016 and March 24, 2017. Results: NRS scores after infiltration anesthesia and the GSR during infiltration anesthesia were significantly lower in the Vapocoolant group than in the Lidocaine and EMLA groups (F=13.56, p<.001 and F=14.43, p<.001, respectively). The increase in systolic blood pressure (F=4.77, p=.011) and in pulse rates (F=4.78, p=.011) before and after infiltration anesthesia were significantly smaller in the Vapocoolant group than in the Lidocaine and EMLA groups; however, no significant differences were observed in diastolic blood pressures (F=1.51, p=.227). Conclusion: EMLA cream plus Vapocoolant spray was the most effective intervention to relieve pain and to lower increase in systolic blood pressure and pulse rate caused by infiltration anesthesia for stereotactic frame fixation. Thus, application of Vapocoolant spray in addition to EMLA cream is highly recommended as a nursing intervention for patients undergoing gamma knife surgeries.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.5
• /
• pp.319-328
• /
• 2024

Background: It is vital to identify more efficient anesthesia techniques for the restorative or endodontic treatment of mandibular molars. Both articaine buccal infiltration anesthesia (ABI) and lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (LIANB) may not provide profound anesthesia, necessitating supplementary anesthesia. This study aimed to investigate whether lidocaine intraosseous lidocaine intraosseous anesthesia (LIO) is more suitable than ABI as primary anesthesia for caries treatment of mandibular molars. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed patients treated for advanced caries according to the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) 5 and 6. The study involved 48 patients, split evenly between those receiving ABI and LIO, and examined the anesthesia success rate, pain during anesthesia, onset time, duration, and post-anesthesia lower lip numbness using Chi-square and Independent T-tests. Results: In the ABI group, 17 patients (70.8%) did not require additional anesthesia, whereas all 24 patients (100%) in the LIO group did not require additional anesthesia (P < 0.001). ABI was associated with significantly higher pain during anesthesia, slower onset time, and longer duration of anesthesia than LIO. There was no significant difference in post-anesthesia lower lip numbness between the two methods. Conclusion: Intraosseous anesthesia using lidocaine is more effective for treating severe caries in the mandibular molars because of its higher success rate, decreased pain during anesthesia, faster onset, and shorter recovery time.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.135-141
• /
• 2023

Background: The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Methods: Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min. Results: Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05). Conclusion: According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.80-83
• /
• 2008

Local infiltration in surgical wounds can reduce postoperative pain with very few side effects. We experienced two cases of chronic pain after forehead lift surgery. A 41-year-old male patient was suffering from a headache at the crown of the head and pain from the posterior neck. A 54-year-old female patient had pain around the forehead, worsened by psychological stress. They underwent forehead lift surgery 10 years and 8 months ago, respectively. Conservative treatments such as medication and physical therapy were not effective. After wound infiltration with 1% lidocaine more than ten times, pain significantly resolved in both patients.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.5
• /
• pp.387-394
• /
• 2022

Background: Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃)) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4-10-year-old children. Methods: Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe. Results: The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration. Conclusion: Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.121-127
• /
• 2017

Background: There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. Method: This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. Results: The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P<0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. Conclusion: We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.9.1-9.9
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS). Materials and Methods: This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (n = 28). After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:80,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP. Conclusions: Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.924-933
• /
• 2004

Purpose: This study was to examine the effects of hand massage and hand holding as nursing interventions on the anxiety in patients with local infiltration anesthesia. Method: The design of this study was a nonequivalent, control group, non- synchronized design. The subjects of this study consisted of 15 patients for the hand massage group, 15 patients for the hand holding group and 17 patients for the control group awaiting surgery in the operation room of a general hospitalin Daegu. As an experimental treatment, hand massage was carried out by the Hand Massage Protocol developed by Snyder(1995) and interpreted by Cho(1998) and hand holding developed by Cho(1998). The data were analyzed by SPSS/WIN, T-test, ANOVA, Cronbach's a, and the Scheffe test. Results: The hand massage group and hand holding group were more effective than the control group in reducing anxiety, VAS score, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate. Conclusion: Hand massage and hand holding are effective nursing interventions that alleviates the psychological and physiological anxiety of patients with local infiltration anesthesia. In particular, the simple contact of hand holding is regarded as an effective and easily accessible nursing intervention in the operating room.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.44-50
• /
• 2008

Background: The use of regional local anesthetics or opioids during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), in combination with general anesthesia, has been investigated in several interventional studies. Methods: We studied a total of 240 (n = 60, each) patients who were undergoing LC, and they received local infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation with normal saline or 0.25% levobupivacaine 60 ml. Group R (S) received infiltration of normal saline 20 ml before incision and at the end of surgery and then 40 ml intraperitoneal instillation after removal of the gall bladder under remifentanil-based anesthesia. Group R (L) received 0.25% levobupivacaine instead of normal saline in the same method like group R (S). Group S (S) received the same method as group R (S) under sevoflurane based anesthesia in place of remifentanil. Group S (L) received 0.25% levobupivacaine instead of normal saline with the same method as group S (S). Pain was assessed on a visual analog scale at 1, 6, 12 and 24 hours after operation. Results: The pain intensity of Group R (L) was significantly lower than that of group R (S), and the the incisional pain of group S (L) was significantly lower than that of group S (S) in the first six hours. The time delay to first operative analgesics in group R (S) and group S (S) was significantly shorter than that of group R (L) and group S (L). Conclusions: Infiltration and instillation of levobupivacaine reduced the postoperative pain and remifentanil did not increase the pain severity and opioid requirement when performing the LC.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.45-49
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The aim of the present clinical trial was to compare pain during injection of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) technique with that of infiltration injection technique in the maxilla in periodontal flap surgeries of patients referring to the Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Methods: Twenty subjects with an age range of 20 to 40 years were selected for the present study. One side of the maxilla was randomly selected as the test side and the other as the control side using a flip of a coin. AMSA technique was used on the test side and infiltration technique was used on the control side for anesthesia. On both sides 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine was used for anesthesia. The operator obtained the visual analogue scale for each patient immediately after the injection and immediately after surgery. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods (frequency percentages, means and standard deviations) and Wilcoxon's test using SPSS ver. 13 (SPSS Inc.). Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in pain during injection between the two techniques (P=0.856). There were statistically significant differences in postoperative pain between the two injection techniques (P=0.024). Conclusions: Postoperative pain in AMSA injection technique was less than that in the infiltration technique. Therefore, the AMSA technique is preferable in the periodontal surgeries for the anesthesia of palatal tissues given the fact that it has other advantages, too.