- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
A pilot double blinded clinical trial to compare between Tramadol HCL and Lidocaine HCL as local anaesthesia amongst hospital-outpatient adult dental attendees Mosul-Iraq | ||
| Journal of Oral and Dental Research | ||
| Article 1, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 13-16 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Tahani A. Alsandook; Yahya A. Al-Haideri | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim of the study: The aim of the current study is to compare the local anesthetic action of tramadol HCL (with adrenaline) and lidocaine HCL (with adrenaline) in minor oral surgery. Method: A double blind study including 124 patients, requiring minor oral surgery (conventional tooth extraction, surgical removal of impacted teeth and periapical surgery) in the lower molar teeth, allocated randomly into two groups: Group A (n=62), in which each patient received initial dose of one dental cartridge, 1.8ml, from drug A (36mg of Lidocaine HCL with (0.0225mg) adrenalin), for conventional tooth extraction, doubled in case of surgical removal of impacted tooth and periapical surgery. Group B (n=62) received one dental cartridge, 1.8ml, from drug B (50 mg of tramadol HCL and (0.0225mg) adrenalin diluted to 1.8 ml by distilled water), again this dose was doubled in case of surgical removal of impacted tooth and periapical surgery. For each patient the onset of anesthesia, number of cartridges used, duration of surgery and the degree of pain (with a 10-cm visual analog scale VAS), had been recorded during the operation.Postoperatively, the patients were instructed to record exactly when the parasthesia disappear and any adverse effects such as nausea andor vomiting on the first day of operation. Result: there was no significant difference between the two study groups in the number of cartridges (1.33/±0.510, 1.37/± 0.519)nor the onset of anesthesia(2.95/±1.46, 3.14/±1.31) minutes, intraoperative pain (0.1935/±0.697, 0.2096/±0.656), duration of surgery (12.77/±10.51, 14.11/±11.66) minutes, and side effects. However there was a significant difference in duration of anesthesia(153.14/±35.10, 117.11/±26.88) minutes, where the group A achieved longer duration of action of local anesthesia. Conclusion: These study findings suggested that Tramadol HCL can be used as alternative to Lidocaine HCL in combination with adrenaline to achieve local anesthesia in situation where Lidocaine HCL is contraindicated or when adequate local anesthesia with minimal paraesthesia is required. Validation and replication of these study findings should be considered in future research. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Local anesthesia; Tramadol; lidocaine; Adrenaline; new local anesthesia; analgesia | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 54 PDF Download: 13 |
||