4.5 Article

Efficacy and safety of 1% ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia after lower third molar surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 779-785

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1831-2

关键词

Ropivacaine; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Impacted lower third molar surgery; Postoperative analgesia

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development [175021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate postoperative analgesic effect of ropivacaine administered as main or supplemental injection for the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients undergoing lower third molar surgery. The double-blind randomized study comprised 72 healthy patients. All patients received two blocks, the IANB for surgical procedure + IANB after surgery for postoperative pain control, and were divided into three groups: (1) 2 % lidocaine/epinephrine + 1 % ropivacaine, (2) 2 % lidocaine/epinephrine + saline, and (3) 1 % ropivacaine + saline. The occurrence of postoperative pain, pain intensity and analgesic requirements were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using chi-square, Fisher, and Kruskal-Wallis tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni and Tukey correction. Ropivacaine was more successful than lidocaine/epinephrine in obtaining duration of postoperative analgesia, reduction of pain, and analgesic requirements whether ropivacaine was used for surgical block or administered as a supplemental injection after surgery. Ropivacaine (1 %, 2 ml) resulted in effective postoperative analgesia after lower third molar surgery. Since pain control related to third molar surgery requires the effective surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia, the use of 1 % ropivacaine could be clinically relevant in a selection of appropriate pain control regimen for both surgical procedure and early postsurgical treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据