论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察盐酸甲哌卡因用于上前牙活髓牙体预备麻醉的临床效果。方法:选择在我院就诊上前牙需烤瓷修复的患者150例,分为两组,实验组75例,采用盐酸甲哌卡因局部浸润麻醉。对照组75例,采用2%的盐酸利多卡因局部浸润,比较其麻醉的疼痛发生率、麻醉起效时间、麻醉持续时间。结果:治疗组采用盐酸甲哌卡因局麻,疼痛发生率为13.3%。对照组用2%的盐酸利多卡因局麻后,疼痛发生率为33.3%。差异显著(P<0.05),具有统计学意义。实验组麻醉起效时间(2.16±0.78)min,对照组为(2.11±0.74)min,无统计学意义。实验组麻醉持续时间(4.92±1.52)h,对照组为(2.17±0.7)h,两组比较有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:盐酸甲哌卡因麻醉的效果显著优于2%的盐酸利多卡因,而且用药少、无不良反应、安全有效。
Objective: To observe the clinical effect of mepivacaine hydrochloride for preparation of anesthetized anterior teeth with live pulp. Methods: One hundred and fifty patients who needed porcelain restoration in our hospital were selected and divided into two groups. The experimental group consisted of 75 cases and received local anesthesia with mepivacaine hydrochloride. The control group of 75 cases, with 2% lidocaine local infiltration, the incidence of anesthesia pain, anesthesia onset time, duration of anesthesia. Results: The treatment group was treated with mepivacaine hydrochloride, the incidence of pain was 13.3%. The control group with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride after local anesthesia, the incidence of pain was 33.3%. The difference was significant (P <0.05), with statistical significance. The onset time of anesthesia in experimental group was (2.16 ± 0.78) min and that in control group was (2.11 ± 0.74) min, which was not statistically significant. The duration of anesthesia in experimental group was (4.92 ± 1.52) h, and that in control group was (2.17 ± 0.7) h. The two groups had statistical significance (P <0.05). Conclusion: The effect of mepivacaine hydrochloride is significantly better than 2% lidocaine hydrochloride, and less medication, no adverse reactions, safe and effective.