Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 51(3): 412-425, 2022 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34391592

RESUMEN

The objective of this systematic review was to assess whether the use of topical anesthetics reduces the perception of pain during puncture and anesthetic infiltration. Twenty-two randomized controlled clinical trials, published in English on or before August 6, 2020, were found in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Risk of bias was determined for randomization and other issues. A total of 1029 patients were evaluated using parameters such as type of topical anesthetic, application site, and pain (measured on a scale). Some studies assessed more than one topical anesthetic. Seventeen of them showed a reduction in pain from needle puncture and four from infiltration. Meta-analyses for some results showed considerable statistical heterogeneity. Regarding pain during needle puncture of the maxilla, statistically significant differences were observed in the topical anesthetics group, in both the vestibular (P = 0.0002) and palatal (P = 0.005) region. This was different from the mandible, for which there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.07). With regard to pain caused by anesthetic infiltration in the maxilla, there was no difference in the use of anesthetic in relation to the control group (P = 0.11). Given these findings, using topical anesthetics only relieves pain during needle puncture and in the maxilla. PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020206362.


Asunto(s)
Anestésicos Locales , Lidocaína , Anestésicos Locales/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Dolor/etiología , Dolor/prevención & control , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Percepción , Punciones/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
2.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 48(9): 1241-1249, 2019 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30792086

RESUMEN

The aim of this systematic review was to test the following hypotheses: (1) that there is no difference in implant survival rate between individuals with overweight or obesity and those who are within the ideal weight range; (2) that there are no differences between these groups regarding indicators of peri-implant health. Two independent reviewers performed a literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 1, 2018. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the risk difference for implant failure and mean difference for marginal bone loss, probing depth, and bleeding on probing. Six studies were selected for review, involving a total of 746 patients with 986 implants: 609 in overweight or obese individuals and 377 in individuals within the ideal weight range. The findings of this systematic review indicate that the first hypothesis should be accepted, since no statistically significant difference in implant survival rate was found between individuals with overweight/obesity and those within the ideal weight range (P=0.64). The second hypothesis was rejected, as the review indicated a difference in marginal bone loss (P<0.00001), probing depth (P<0.00001), and bleeding around dental implants (P<0.00001).


Asunto(s)
Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar , Implantes Dentales , Fracaso de la Restauración Dental , Humanos , Obesidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA