PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-8 (8)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
jtitle_s:("anesti Prog")
1.  The Latest ASA Mandate: CO2 Monitoring For Moderate and Deep Sedation 
Anesthesia Progress  2011;58(3):111-112.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-58.3.111
PMCID: PMC3167153  PMID: 21882985
2.  Heart Rate Effects of Intraosseous Injections Using Slow and Fast Rates of Anesthetic Solution Deposition 
Anesthesia Progress  2008;55(1):9-15.
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a single-blind manner, 3 primary intraosseous injections to 61 subjects using: the Wand local anesthetic system at a deposition rate of 45 seconds (fast injection); the Wand local anesthetic system at a deposition rate of 4 minutes and 45 seconds (slow injection); a conventional syringe injection at a deposition rate of 4 minutes and 45 seconds (slow injection), in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 3 weeks apart. A pulse oximeter measured heart rate (pulse). The results demonstrated the mean maximum heart rate was statistically higher with the fast intraosseous injection (average 21 to 28 beats/min increase) than either of the 2 slow intraosseous injections (average 10 to 12 beats/min increase). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 slow injections. We concluded that an intraosseous injection of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine with the Wand at a 45-second rate of anesthetic deposition resulted in a significantly higher heart rate when compared with a 4-minute and 45-second anesthetic solution deposition using either the Wand or traditional syringe.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2008)55[9:HREOII]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC2268887  PMID: 18327970
Intraosseous; Heart rate; Slow and fast injections
3.  The Effects of a 2-Stage Injection Technique on Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain 
Anesthesia Progress  2006;53(4):126-130.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study was to compare the pain of a traditional 1-stage inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block injection to a 2-stage IAN block technique. Using a crossover design, 51 subjects randomly received, in a single-blinded manner, either the traditional IAN block or the 2-stage IAN block in 2 appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. For the 2-stage injection, the needle was inserted submucosally and 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was slowly given over 1 minute. After 5 minutes, the needle was reinserted and advanced to the target site (needle placement), and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited. For the traditional IAN block, following needle penetration, the needle was advanced while depositing 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (needle placement) and then 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited at the target site. A Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to measure the pain of needle insertion, needle placement, and anesthetic solution deposition. There were no significant differences, as analyzed by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, between needle insertion and solution deposition for the 2 techniques in men or women. However, there was significantly less pain with the 2-stage injection for needle placement in women. In conclusion, the 2-stage injection significantly reduced the pain of needle placement for women when compared to the traditional IAN technique.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2006)53[126:TEOASI]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC1705832  PMID: 17177591
Injection pain; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine
4.  Anesthetic Efficacy of Lidocaine/Meperidine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks 
Anesthesia Progress  2006;53(4):131-139.
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a single-blind manner, inferior alveolar nerve blocks using 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 μg of epinephrine or a combination of 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 μg epinephrine plus 36 mg meperidine with 18 μg of epinephrine, at 2 separate appointments, to 52 subjects. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the molars, premolars, and central and lateral incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 minutes. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 8 to 58% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine/meperidine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 0 to 17%. There was a significant difference (P < .05) between the lidocaine and lidocaine/meperidine solutions for the lateral incisors through the second molars. We conclude that the addition of meperidine to a standard lidocaine solution does not increase the success of the inferior alveolar nerve block.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2006)53[131:AEOMFI]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC1705828  PMID: 17177592
Meperidine; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine
5.  Anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection. 
Anesthesia Progress  2004;51(3):80-89.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system versus a conventional syringe. The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered in a blind manner 2 AMSA injections utilizing the computer-assisted injection system and a conventional syringe to 40 subjects during 2 separate appointments. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the central and lateral incisors, canine, and first and second premolars. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive no responses (80 readings) with the pulp tester were obtained. For all teeth, except the central incisor, the use of the computer-assisted injection system was significantly (P < .05) more likely to result in pulpal anesthesia than the use of the conventional syringe technique. For the computer-assisted injection system, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 35 to 58%, and for the conventional syringe, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 20 to 42%. For both techniques, the onset of pulpal anesthesia was slow, and duration of pulpal anesthesia declined steadily over 60 minutes. We conclude that although the AMSA injection using the computer-assisted injection system was more successful than the conventional syringe technique, the rather modest to low success rates, slow onset, and declining duration of pulpal anesthesia over 60 minutes would not ensure predictable pulpal anesthesia from the second premolar to the central incisor.
PMCID: PMC2007480  PMID: 15497297
6.  A comparison of injection pain and postoperative pain of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques. 
Anesthesia Progress  2003;50(3):111-120.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare injection pain and postoperative pain of an apical primary X-Tip intraosseous technique to a coronal primary Stabident intraosseous technique in mandibular first molars. Using a repeated-measures design, 41 subjects randomly received 2 primary intraosseous injections at 2 separate appointments. Using a site distal to the mandibular first molar for both injections, the subjects received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine administered with the X-Tip system using an apical location in alveolar mucosa or 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine administered with the Stabident system using a coronal location in attached gingiva. The pain of infiltration, perforation, needle insertion, solution deposition, mock or actual guide sleeve removal and postoperative pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS) scale for the 2 intraosseous systems. The results demonstrated that the apical primary X-Tip intraosseous technique was not statistically different (P > .05) from the coronal primary Stabident technique regarding pain ratings of infiltration, perforation, needle insertion, solution deposition, mock or actual guide sleeve removal and postoperative pain (at the time subjective anesthesia wore off). However, on postoperative days 1 through 3, significantly (P < .05) more males experienced postoperative pain with the X-Tip system than with the Stabident system.
Images
PMCID: PMC2007441  PMID: 14558586
7.  Bispectral EEG index monitoring of high-dose nitrous oxide and low-dose sevoflurane sedation. 
Anesthesia Progress  2002;49(2):56-62.
This single-blind controlled clinical study characterized the effects of 30-70% nitrous oxide (N2O) and 0.2-0.8% sevoflurane conscious sedation on quantitative electroencephalographic (EEG) readings of 22 healthy dental students as measured by the bispectral index (BIS). The study verified the 2 previously published BIS/N2O investigations showing no correlation between N2O dosage up to 70% and BIS. Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scores (OAA/S), however, correlated well with increasing doses of N2O from approximately 35 to 70%. A near linear dose-response relationship was established between OAA/S and end tidal (ET) sevoflurane concentrations of 0.4-0.7%. Only at the highest level of end tidal sevoflurane recorded, 0.7%, was statistically significant BIS depression seen. Subjects evaluated the acceptability of the sedative effect of the 2 gases, showing a slight preference for N2O. Comparable partial anterograde amnesia and sedation (OAA/S) were produced by both agents in administered concentrations of 40-70% N2O and 0.6-0.8% sevoflurane. Female subjects exhibited better memory and significantly less amnesia than males. No statistically significant changes occurred in any of the monitored vital signs. EMG readings demonstrated a statistically significant difference from control values only at the highest, 0.7%, ET concentration of sevoflurane. BIS does not appear useful for evaluating the level of nitrous oxide sedation in the dental setting but may have some value in assessing depth of sedation at deeper levels of sevoflurane sedation.
Images
PMCID: PMC2007394  PMID: 15384293
8.  A Comparison of the Periodontal Ligament Injection Using 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine and Saline in Human Mandibular Premolars 
Anesthesia Progress  1987;34(5):181-186.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate, with the electric pulp tester, the anesthetic efficacy of the periodontal ligament injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and saline in human mandibular premolars. The periodontal ligament injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was found to be an effective technique for anesthetizing mandibular first premolars. However, the duration of profound pulpal anesthesia was approximately 10 minutes. The periodontal ligament injection using sterile saline was not an effective technique for anesthesia. Teeth mesial and distal to the injected tooth may also become anesthetized with this injection technique. The initial needle penetration and injection of the anesthetic solution in clinically healthy teeth were only mildly discomforting. No increase in tooth mobility was observed 45 minutes after the periodontal ligament injection. No clinically observable pulpal or periodontal damage was seen at 3 weeks after the injection.
PMCID: PMC2148545  PMID: 3479918

Results 1-8 (8)