Kovanaze鼻内喷雾剂与传统注射麻醉剂的比较:利用激光多普勒血流测定法对Pulpal血流的研究。

Q3 Medicine Anesthesia progress Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.2344/anpr-68-03-10
Scott Thayer, J. Townsend, M. Peters, Q. Yu, M. Odom, Kent A. Sabey
{"title":"Kovanaze鼻内喷雾剂与传统注射麻醉剂的比较:利用激光多普勒血流测定法对Pulpal血流的研究。","authors":"Scott Thayer, J. Townsend, M. Peters, Q. Yu, M. Odom, Kent A. Sabey","doi":"10.2344/anpr-68-03-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nAn ideal local anesthetic would be effective, minimally reduce pulpal blood flow (PBF), and not require injection. This study compared the effects of 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline nasal spray (Kovanaze; KNS) and injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) or 3% mepivacaine plain (MP) on PBF, anesthetic efficacy, and participant preference.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn a double-blind cross-over design, 20 subjects randomly received a test anesthetic and placebo at each of 3 visits (KNS/mock infiltration; mock nasal spray/LE; or mock nasal spray/MP). Nasal sprays and infiltration apical to a maxillary central incisor were delivered ipsilaterally. PBF was evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry, and local anesthetic success was assessed with electric pulp testing. Postoperative pain levels, participant preference, and adverse events were also assessed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nLE injections demonstrated significant reductions in PBF at all time intervals compared with baseline (P < .05), whereas KNS and MP did not. Pulpal anesthesia success rates were higher for LE (85%) compared with MP (35%) and KNS (5%). Participants reported significantly higher postoperative pain levels for KNS compared with LE and MP. Additionally, KNS was the least preferred of the anesthetics administered and resulted in more reported adverse events.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nAlthough KNS showed no significant effect on PBF, it was not effective in achieving pulpal anesthesia as used in this study.","PeriodicalId":7818,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia progress","volume":"69 1 1","pages":"31-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kovanaze Intranasal Spray vs Traditional Injected Anesthetics: a Study of Pulpal Blood Flow Utilizing Laser Doppler Flowmetry.\",\"authors\":\"Scott Thayer, J. Townsend, M. Peters, Q. Yu, M. Odom, Kent A. Sabey\",\"doi\":\"10.2344/anpr-68-03-10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nAn ideal local anesthetic would be effective, minimally reduce pulpal blood flow (PBF), and not require injection. This study compared the effects of 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline nasal spray (Kovanaze; KNS) and injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) or 3% mepivacaine plain (MP) on PBF, anesthetic efficacy, and participant preference.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nIn a double-blind cross-over design, 20 subjects randomly received a test anesthetic and placebo at each of 3 visits (KNS/mock infiltration; mock nasal spray/LE; or mock nasal spray/MP). Nasal sprays and infiltration apical to a maxillary central incisor were delivered ipsilaterally. PBF was evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry, and local anesthetic success was assessed with electric pulp testing. Postoperative pain levels, participant preference, and adverse events were also assessed.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nLE injections demonstrated significant reductions in PBF at all time intervals compared with baseline (P < .05), whereas KNS and MP did not. Pulpal anesthesia success rates were higher for LE (85%) compared with MP (35%) and KNS (5%). Participants reported significantly higher postoperative pain levels for KNS compared with LE and MP. Additionally, KNS was the least preferred of the anesthetics administered and resulted in more reported adverse events.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nAlthough KNS showed no significant effect on PBF, it was not effective in achieving pulpal anesthesia as used in this study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia progress\",\"volume\":\"69 1 1\",\"pages\":\"31-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia progress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2344/anpr-68-03-10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2344/anpr-68-03-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的理想的局部麻醉剂是有效的,最低限度地减少牙髓血流量(PBF),并且不需要注射。本研究比较了3%丁卡因加0.05%羟甲唑啉鼻喷雾剂(Kovanaze;KNS)和2%利多卡因加1:100000肾上腺素(LE)或3%甲哌卡因素(MP)对PBF、麻醉效果和参与者偏好的影响。方法采用双盲交叉设计,20名受试者在3次访视(KNS/模拟浸润;模拟鼻喷雾剂/LE;或模拟鼻喷雾剂/MP)中的每次访视中随机接受测试麻醉剂和安慰剂。鼻腔喷雾和浸润顶端到上颌中切牙是同侧输送。PBF通过激光多普勒流量计进行评估,局部麻醉成功率通过电浆测试进行评估。还评估了术后疼痛程度、参与者偏好和不良事件。结果与基线相比,SLE注射在所有时间间隔显示PBF显著降低(P<0.05),而KNS和MP则没有。LE的Pulpal麻醉成功率(85%)高于MP(35%)和KNS(5%)。参与者报告称,与LE和MP相比,KNS的术后疼痛水平明显更高。此外,KNS是最不受欢迎的麻醉剂,并导致更多报告的不良事件。结论尽管KNS对PBF没有显著影响,但在本研究中使用的牙髓麻醉方面并不有效。
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
Kovanaze Intranasal Spray vs Traditional Injected Anesthetics: a Study of Pulpal Blood Flow Utilizing Laser Doppler Flowmetry.
OBJECTIVE An ideal local anesthetic would be effective, minimally reduce pulpal blood flow (PBF), and not require injection. This study compared the effects of 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline nasal spray (Kovanaze; KNS) and injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) or 3% mepivacaine plain (MP) on PBF, anesthetic efficacy, and participant preference. METHODS In a double-blind cross-over design, 20 subjects randomly received a test anesthetic and placebo at each of 3 visits (KNS/mock infiltration; mock nasal spray/LE; or mock nasal spray/MP). Nasal sprays and infiltration apical to a maxillary central incisor were delivered ipsilaterally. PBF was evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry, and local anesthetic success was assessed with electric pulp testing. Postoperative pain levels, participant preference, and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS LE injections demonstrated significant reductions in PBF at all time intervals compared with baseline (P < .05), whereas KNS and MP did not. Pulpal anesthesia success rates were higher for LE (85%) compared with MP (35%) and KNS (5%). Participants reported significantly higher postoperative pain levels for KNS compared with LE and MP. Additionally, KNS was the least preferred of the anesthetics administered and resulted in more reported adverse events. CONCLUSION Although KNS showed no significant effect on PBF, it was not effective in achieving pulpal anesthesia as used in this study.
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
Anesthesia progress
Anesthesia progress Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Anesthesia Progress is a peer-reviewed journal and the official publication of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology. The journal is dedicated to providing a better understanding of the advances being made in the art and science of pain and anxiety control in dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Sedation Levels Using SedLine During Intravenous Sedation for Dental Procedures: A Case-Series Study. Cardiac Arrest Due to Pacing Failure From Pilsicainide Poisoning. A New Dental Specialty in Canada. Literature Review for Office-Based Anesthesia. Hypotension Without Skin Symptoms at Local Anesthesia in Dental Treatment: Anaphylaxis? Or Vasovagal Reaction?
×
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