Halstead技术、Clark and Holmes技术、Gow Gates技术和Sargenti技术用于下颌骨麻醉的疗效比较

Sayali Awate, Kalyani Bhate, Uday Londhe, Murtaza Contractor, Tushar Bhosale, Shreyas Lokhande
{"title":"Halstead技术、Clark and Holmes技术、Gow Gates技术和Sargenti技术用于下颌骨麻醉的疗效比较","authors":"Sayali Awate, Kalyani Bhate, Uday Londhe, Murtaza Contractor, Tushar Bhosale, Shreyas Lokhande","doi":"10.4103/njms.njms_157_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the inferior alveolar nerve block, that is, the Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, for mandibular anesthesia. Methodology: This prospective, double-blinded, in-vivo study was conducted amongst 100 patients, requiring mandibular anesthesia. These patients were divided into four groups. Parameters assessed were time required for appearance of subjective and objective symptoms and signs, positive aspiration, need for supplementary anesthesia, and ease of administration. Results: The means for subjective symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 78.44, 120.76, 176.6, and 203.08, respectively. The means for objectives symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 110.6, 269.8, 287.48, and 154.08, respectively. Halstead technique had statistically significant ( P < 0.05) faster objective signs than all the other techniques. Supplementary block if required was noted for all four techniques. Conclusion: The Clark and Holmes technique showed maximum complications, while Gow Gates technique was most difficult to administer. The Angelo Sargenti technique gave good results, same as standard Halstead technique.","PeriodicalId":18827,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique for mandibular anesthesia\",\"authors\":\"Sayali Awate, Kalyani Bhate, Uday Londhe, Murtaza Contractor, Tushar Bhosale, Shreyas Lokhande\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/njms.njms_157_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the inferior alveolar nerve block, that is, the Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, for mandibular anesthesia. Methodology: This prospective, double-blinded, in-vivo study was conducted amongst 100 patients, requiring mandibular anesthesia. These patients were divided into four groups. Parameters assessed were time required for appearance of subjective and objective symptoms and signs, positive aspiration, need for supplementary anesthesia, and ease of administration. Results: The means for subjective symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 78.44, 120.76, 176.6, and 203.08, respectively. The means for objectives symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 110.6, 269.8, 287.48, and 154.08, respectively. Halstead technique had statistically significant ( P < 0.05) faster objective signs than all the other techniques. Supplementary block if required was noted for all four techniques. Conclusion: The Clark and Holmes technique showed maximum complications, while Gow Gates technique was most difficult to administer. The Angelo Sargenti technique gave good results, same as standard Halstead technique.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_157_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_157_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评价下牙槽神经阻滞,即Halstead技术、Clark and Holmes技术、Gow Gates技术和Sargenti技术在下颌麻醉中的应用。方法:这项前瞻性、双盲、活体研究在100例需要下颌骨麻醉的患者中进行。这些患者被分为四组。评估的参数包括出现主客观症状和体征所需的时间、阳性误吸、是否需要辅助麻醉以及给药的难易程度。结果:Halstead技术、Clark and Holmes技术、Gow Gates技术和Sargenti技术的主观症状均值分别为78.44、120.76、176.6和203.08。Halstead技术、Clark and Holmes技术、Gow Gates技术和Sargenti技术4种技术的目标症状均值分别为110.6、269.8、287.48和154.08。Halstead技术差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)比其他所有技术都快。如果需要,所有四种技术都注意到补充块。结论:Clark and Holmes技术并发症最多,而Gow Gates技术最难实施。Angelo Sargenti的技术得到了很好的结果,和标准的Halstead技术一样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique for mandibular anesthesia
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the inferior alveolar nerve block, that is, the Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, for mandibular anesthesia. Methodology: This prospective, double-blinded, in-vivo study was conducted amongst 100 patients, requiring mandibular anesthesia. These patients were divided into four groups. Parameters assessed were time required for appearance of subjective and objective symptoms and signs, positive aspiration, need for supplementary anesthesia, and ease of administration. Results: The means for subjective symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 78.44, 120.76, 176.6, and 203.08, respectively. The means for objectives symptoms for the four techniques, that is, Halstead technique, Clark and Holmes technique, Gow Gates technique, and Sargenti technique, were 110.6, 269.8, 287.48, and 154.08, respectively. Halstead technique had statistically significant ( P < 0.05) faster objective signs than all the other techniques. Supplementary block if required was noted for all four techniques. Conclusion: The Clark and Holmes technique showed maximum complications, while Gow Gates technique was most difficult to administer. The Angelo Sargenti technique gave good results, same as standard Halstead technique.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Soft skills for personal development of the surgeon for improved outcomes for patient and surgeon. Oral rhabdomyosarcoma of mandibular region: A case report. Evaluation of efficacy of simvastatin in bone regeneration following local application in third molar extraction socket: A randomized control trial. Comparative evaluation of implant stability and crestal bone level between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1