Advanced Search
  • Users Online: 337
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 59-72

A clinical comparison of bupivacaine versus lidocaine for maxillary and mandibular anesthesia in oral surgery

Akram Khan1, Amit Sangle2, Aruna Tambuwala3, Shehzad Sheikh4, Aatif Sayed5, Gaurav Khutwad5
1 Sr.Lecturer, Department Of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Guardian Dental College, Ambarnath, Maharashtra, India
2 Prof, Department Of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M A Rangoonwala College Of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Professor & HOD, Department Of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M A Rangoonwala College Of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India
4 Post Graduate student, Department Of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M A Rangoonwala College Of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India
5 Sr. Lecturer, Department Of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M A Rangoonwala College Of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Shehzad Sheikh
c/o Md Shafi SkBudhan Fruit merchant, Near YA-ALLAH Masjid, Firdous Colony, Lakadganj, Akola-444001.Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of bupivacaine and lignocaine for the surgical removal of mandibular impacted third molars. The study focused on pain experience and analgesic consumption. Materials and Methods: Forty patients, aged between 18-45yrs, were selected each with bilateral mandibular third molar indicated for extraction under local anesthesia. The mean age of the patients was 24 years and the ratio of males to females was 23 to 17. All patients randomly received lignocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000 for one extraction and bupivacaine 0.5% with adrenaline 1:200,000 for the other sided extraction. Results: The visual analog and global pain scores for both groups were outlined. There was no significant difference between bupivacaine and lidocaine for intra-operative pain experience. Conclusion: There were no signs or symptoms of central nervous system or cardiovascular system toxicity in this study and the routine use of bupivacaine in oral surgery would appear to 60 be a safe and effective method of producing adequate surgical analgesia and an increased post-operative pain free period.


[PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1032    
    Printed55    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded158    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

© Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 31st March, 2016