3.8 Article

Is amalgamated ligno-bupivacaine an answer to complicated minor oral surgical anesthesia? A randomized split-mouth double-blind clinical trial

Journal

ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY-HEIDELBERG
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 97-104

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-018-0676-z

Keywords

Lignocaine; Bupivacaine; Lignocaine bupivacaine mixture; Local anesthesia; Minor oral surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to find a suitable anesthetic combination for complicated and protracted minor oral surgical procedures. Methods Fifty patients with bilaterally impacted deep-seated mandibular third molars were included in this study and randomly divided on the basis of anesthetic used into two groups. Group A received 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline while in group B, amalgamated mixture of 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was used. The onset time, duration of anesthetic effect, supplementary injections, pain (during local anesthetic deposition, intra and postoperatively), and postoperative analgesia were the study parameters. Chi-square and unpaired t tests were used to compare means. Results The onset time in both the groups was comparable and showed statistically significant difference between the duration of anesthetic effect with notable requirement of supplemental anesthetic injections in group A (54%) (p < 0.05). Pain scores also revealed a statistically significant intergroup difference (p < 0.05). Requirement of postoperative analgesics was delayed in group B. Conclusions The amalgamated mixture of lignocaine and bupivacaine had equivocally rational onset and provided a more profound and in-depth anesthesia especially in complicated and protracted minor oral surgical procedures. Though this mixture is widely used in other surgical fields, its efficacy still remains unexploited and undocumented in oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available