open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
surface by using four kinds of the QLF devices. Materials and Methods: A total of 52 human permanent premolars and molars were used. Fluorescence images were captured by the QLF devices (Inspektor Pro, QLF-D, Qraycam, and Qraypen). Fluorescence loss of the QLF was calculated. The severity of lesions was categorized into the following 3 scores using polarized light microscopy: normal (S), enamel demineralization to outer half of enamel (D1), and inner half of the enamel up to the dentin-enamel junction (D2). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the fluorescence loss among the QLF devices. Spearman rank correlation coefficient between histological scores and fluorescence loss of the devices was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) were calculated to compare their diagnostic accuracies. Results: The correlation coefficients between histological scores and the fluorescence loss of the devices showed 0.77 to 0.81 (P < 0.001). All histological scores, the fluorescence loss among the devices showed no statistical difference. Among the devices, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of the fluorescence loss showed 0.84 to 0.94, 0.76 to 0.90, and 0.90 to 0.92, respectively. Conclusions: All QLF devices had no difference with excellent diagnostic accuracies to detect non-cavitated enamel caries on smooth surface.
Meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines the results of individual studies on the same topic. This method is becoming popular, due to providing the combined result that individual studies cannot provide and giving a more precise result. Despite meta-analysis having such significance, there were few Korean guides for the use of the Review Manager (RevMan) software. This study will provide a step-by-step guide, using orthodontic mini-screw as a dental example, to help researcher carry out metaanalysis more easily and accurately.
INTRODUCTION The most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. METHODS Sixty-five healthy participants underwent surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars in two separate visits while under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with different epinephrine concentration (1:80,000 or 1:200,000) in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Visual analogue scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the two groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analogue scale pain scores obtained 2, 4, and 6 h after administering an anesthetic, onset and duration of analgesia, onset of pain, intraoperative bleeding, operator’s and participant’s overall satisfaction, drug dosage, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for the two groups. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any measurements except hemodynamic factors (P > .05). Changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate following anesthetic administration were significantly greater in the group receiving 1:80,000 epinephrine than in that receiving 1:200,000 epinephrine (P 01). CONCLUSION The difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients. Key words : Epinephrine; Hemodynamics; Lidocaine
The most widely used method of pain control in dental practice is to block the pathway of painful impulses by local anesthesia. For a maximum effect of pain control at outpatient minor operation, regional anesthesia including nerve block must be performed. This issue includes various dental local anesthetic techniques on mandible, maxilla and considerations for selection of dental local anesthetics according to patient's age, duration of operation. Additionally, current conscious sedation technique combined with local anesthesia will be introduced for control of patient's anxiousness. Based on patient's general condition, severity of operation, local anesthesia sometimes must be changed into general anesthesia to avoid failure of dental practice. The exact choice of anesthetic techniques for minor operations at dental outpatient clinic must not be underestimated for complete success of pain control.
Dental local anesthesia is important procedure for the elimination of pain during dental treatment. However, the pain during local anesthesia is one of the main source of fear to the patients. The cause of pain during dental local anesthesia includes soft tissue damage during penetration of the oral mucosa, pressure from the spread of the anesthetic solution, temperature of anesthetic solution, low pH of anesthetic solution, and the characteristics of the drug. Several concepts and devices introduced to date to reduce the pain during local anesthesia for dental treatment. In this report, devices that can reduce the pain during local anesthesia will be discussed.