Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intra-pocket anaesthesia and pain during probing, scaling and root planing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wambier, Letícia M; de Geus, Juliana L; Chibinski, Ana C R; Wambier, Denise S; Rego, Rodrigo O; Loguercio, Alessandro D; Reis, Alessandra.
Afiliación
  • Wambier LM; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
  • de Geus JL; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
  • Chibinski AC; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
  • Wambier DS; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
  • Rego RO; Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, CE, Brazil.
  • Loguercio AD; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
  • Reis A; Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
J Clin Periodontol ; 43(9): 754-66, 2016 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27097588
AIM: A systematic review/meta-analysis was performed to evaluate pain during probing, scaling and root planing using intra-pocket anaesthesia versus placebo in adult patients. METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library and Grey literature. IADR abstracts, unpublished trials registries, dissertations and theses were also searched for randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical effectiveness of intra-pocket anaesthesia and placebo. Risk/intensity of pain was the primary outcome. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on studies considered at low risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 1740 articles were identified. Eleven remained in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies were considered at "low" risk of bias for meta-analysis. Standardized Hedge's g mean difference for pain intensity using visual analogue scale and Heft-Parker pain scales was -0.576 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.94 to -0.22; p = 0.002) and for verbal rating scale pain scale it was -1.814 (95% CI -3.38 to -0.245; p = 0.023). The odds ratio for the risk of pain was 0.025 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.25; p = 0.002) and the odds ratio for the need for rescue anaesthesia it was 0.358 (95% CI 0.174 to 0.736; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The anaesthetic gel decreases the risk and intensity of pain during probing/SRP.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: America do sul / Brasil Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: America do sul / Brasil Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos