RESUMO
We compared the buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 200,000 epinephrine without a palatal injection for the extraction of impacted maxillary third molars with chronic pericoronitis. This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involved 30 patients between the ages of 15 and 46 years who desired extraction of a partially impacted upper third molar with pericoronitis. Group 1 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine and group 2 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine by buccal infiltration. None of the patients in group 1 reported pain, but 3 patients in group 2 reported pain, which indicated a need for a supplementary palatal injection. The palatal injections were all successful in eliminating the pain. Two additional patients in group 2 experienced pain when the suture needle penetrated their palatal mucosa. Based on these results, 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine was found to be more effective for the removal of upper third molars in the presence of pericoronitis than 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine when only a buccal infiltration was used.
Assuntos
Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Carticaína/administração & dosagem , Epinefrina/administração & dosagem , Dente Serotino/cirurgia , Pericoronite/cirurgia , Extração Dentária/métodos , Vasoconstritores/administração & dosagem , Administração Bucal , Adolescente , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Complicações Intraoperatórias , Maxila/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Agulhas/efeitos adversos , Dor/etiologia , Palato/efeitos dos fármacos , Pericoronite/complicações , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Prospectivos , Técnicas de Sutura/instrumentação , Dente Impactado/complicações , Dente Impactado/cirurgia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dental infections resulting before or after third molar removal are complications in which the maxillofacial surgeon may have to initiate an earlier management. The severe dental infections resulting before or after this procedure is one of the few life-threatening complications in which the maxillofacial surgeon may have to initiate an earlier management. Infections involving the temporal space are rare and infrequently reported. Infections in this space have also been observed secondary to maxillary sinusitis, maxillary sinus fracture, temporomandibular arthroscopy, and drug injection, although more commonly associated to third molar infections. CASE REPORT: A 22-year-old man had undergone extraction of tooth 38 secondary to pericoronaritis by a general dentist. Physical examination of his face demonstrated severe trismus, pain, and swelling in temporal region. A CT scan showed an inflammatory area into the temporal space. He was started on IV cephalosporin, but the clinical course of the patient was not satisfactory. Incision and drainage were performed from an extraoral and intraoral approach. After discharged, the antibiotic was switched to clindamycin IO 600 mg. DISCUSSION: The retromaxillary and temporal infections are quite common after maxillary molar extractions but not after mandibular third molar, the spread mechanism of ascension must be involved with the virulence of microorganisms, but more studies are necessary to clarify this occurrence.