论文部分内容阅读
目的:总结个人临床工作经验,探讨不同麻醉药物对牙体牙髓病的麻醉效果以及其临床应用价值。方法:对我院2011年3月至2012年11月收治的78例急性牙体、牙髓病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中选择利多卡因进行局部麻醉38例,选择阿替卡因进行局部麻醉40例,比较2种不同麻醉药物对牙体牙髓病的麻醉效果、麻醉后生命体征、不良反应发生情况。结果:利多卡因麻醉组患牙麻醉总有效率为88.89%,阿替卡因麻醉组患牙麻醉总有效率为96.15%,两组麻醉效果差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);患者经2种麻醉药物麻醉后生命体征比较无明显差异(P>0.05);利多卡因麻醉组不良反应发生率为18.42%,阿替卡因麻醉组不良反应发生率为5.00%,两组麻醉后不良反应发生情况差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:阿替卡因用于口腔科中治疗牙体、牙髓病的麻醉效果较利多卡因更为理想,麻醉后生命体征的影响较小,麻醉副作用较小,具有良好的临床应用价值。
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the experience of individual clinical work and to explore the anesthetic effect of different anesthetic drugs on dental pulp disease and its clinical value. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 78 patients with acute dental pulp disease treated in our hospital from March 2011 to November 2012. Among them, 38 cases were selected for local anesthesia with lidocaine, 40 cases of local anesthesia, anesthesia effects of two different anesthetics on dental pulp disease, vital signs after anesthesia, adverse reactions. Results: The total effective rate of dental anesthesia was 88.89% in the lidocaine group and 96.15% in the articaine anesthesia group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05) There was no significant difference in the vital signs between the two anesthetics (P> 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was 18.42% in the lidocaine group and 5.00% in the articaine anesthesia group. There were significant differences in the response (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine in the treatment of dentin and endodontics in stomatology. It has less influence on vital signs after anesthesia and less side effects of anesthesia, and has good clinical value.