本文選題：健康志愿者　切入點(diǎn)：局部麻醉　出處：《中國醫(yī)學(xué)科學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》2014年03期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的比較在健康志愿者中使用計(jì)算機(jī)控制局部麻醉注射儀(C-CLADS)進(jìn)行的牙周膜麻醉與使用手推注射器進(jìn)行黏膜下浸潤麻醉在注射疼痛、麻醉效果、麻藥用量及并發(fā)癥方面的差異。方法 2012年9月至2013年5月在北京協(xié)和醫(yī)院口腔科招募50例18~56歲志愿者,采用隨機(jī)自身對(duì)照,一側(cè)采用C-CLADS進(jìn)行牙周膜麻醉,對(duì)側(cè)用傳統(tǒng)的手推式黏膜下浸潤麻醉(對(duì)照),比較兩側(cè)的起效時(shí)間、用藥劑量及麻醉效果,并采用語言評(píng)價(jià)量表(VRS)和視覺模擬量表(VAS)評(píng)價(jià)注射疼痛程度,記錄兩種麻醉方式的并發(fā)癥。結(jié)果采用C-CLADS進(jìn)行牙周膜麻醉的藥物劑量和注射疼痛程度均顯著小于傳統(tǒng)的手推式浸潤麻醉[劑量:(0.34±0.09)ml比(0.55±0.13)ml,P0.01;VRS:0.42±0.73比1.38±0.92,P0.01;VAS:1.34±1.21比3.10±1.70,P0.01]。C-CLADS麻醉成功率與傳統(tǒng)黏膜下浸潤麻醉比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(90.0%比94.0%,P0.05)。牙周膜麻醉12例(24%)出現(xiàn)牙周膜麻醉后疼痛。結(jié)論采用C-CLADS進(jìn)行牙周膜麻醉與傳統(tǒng)的手推注射黏膜下浸潤麻醉比較,可以減少藥物劑量,降低注射疼痛,并達(dá)到良好的麻醉效果,但有較大比例出現(xiàn)術(shù)后疼痛。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the effects of periodontal membrane anesthesia using computer controlled local anesthesia injector (C-CLADS) in healthy volunteers and submucous infiltration anesthesia with hand push syringe in injection pain and anaesthesia. Methods from September 2012 to May 2013, 50 volunteers aged 18 to 56 years old were recruited from the Department of Stomatology of Peking Union Hospital. They were randomly self-controlled and treated with C-CLADS on one side for periodontal membrane anesthesia. The contralateral submucosal infiltration anesthesia was used to evaluate the degree of injection pain by using the traditional hand push submucosal infiltration anesthesia (control group, control group, the onset time, dosage and effect of anesthesia) and visual analogue scale (VAS-VRS), and to evaluate the degree of injection pain by using language evaluation scale (VRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Results the dose of C-CLADS for periodontal membrane anesthesia and the degree of injection pain were significantly lower than those of the traditional hand push invasive anesthesia [dose: 0.34 鹵0.09ml vs 0.55 鹵0.13ml vs 0.55 鹵0.13ml vs 0.42 鹵0.73 vs 1.38 鹵0.92P0.01VAS-1.34 鹵1.21 vs 3.10 鹵1.70P0.01] .C-CLADS was successful in anesthesia and traditional anesthesia, and the success rate of C-CLADS was significantly lower than that of conventional anesthesia (0.55 鹵0.13ml vs 0.55 鹵0.13ml vs 1.38 鹵0.92P0.01vs 1.38 鹵0.92P0.01VAS1.34 鹵1.21 vs 3.10 鹵1.70P0.01). There was no significant difference in submucosal infiltration anesthesia (90.0% vs 94.0%, P 0.05). Periodontal ligament anesthesia occurred in 12 cases (24 cases). Conclusion C-CLADS for periodontal membrane anesthesia is compared with traditional hand push injection submucosal infiltration anesthesia. It can reduce drug dose, reduce injection pain, and achieve good anaesthesia effect, but there is a large proportion of postoperative pain.
【作者單位】： 中國醫(yī)學(xué)科學(xué)院北京協(xié)和醫(yī)學(xué)院北京協(xié)和醫(yī)院口腔科;
【基金】：美國中華醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)基金(A350600)~~
【分類號(hào)】：R782.054

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃玉庭,黃麗;牙周膜麻醉法[J];中國鄉(xiāng)村醫(yī)藥;1995年10期

2 薛晨屹,郭偉,張偉杰,汪涌;應(yīng)用無痛局麻注射儀進(jìn)行牙周膜麻醉的效果評(píng)定[J];上海口腔醫(yī)學(xué);2000年04期

3 逄愛慧;李明;朱聲榮;馬凈植;孫國洪;;急性牙髓炎應(yīng)用無痛局麻儀進(jìn)行牙周膜麻醉的臨床評(píng)價(jià)[J];臨床口腔醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2006年10期

4 劉華;何俐;;三種局麻方法對(duì)下頜磨牙麻醉效果的臨床評(píng)價(jià)[J];醫(yī)學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2010年09期

5 劉國順;張平;;后磨牙冠根折修復(fù)保存的探討[J];現(xiàn)代醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生;2007年07期

6 洪江;;老年高血壓、糖尿病患者拔牙70例臨床觀察[J];中國社區(qū)醫(yī)師(醫(yī)學(xué)專業(yè));2010年06期

7 Christopher E Laron ,壽柏泉;對(duì)血友病患者口腔外科麻醉的考慮[J];國外醫(yī)學(xué).口腔醫(yī)學(xué)分冊(cè);1982年04期

8 陳思韓;李正明;楊旭;李雪琦;陳梅;;皮試注射器用于口腔局部麻醉的臨床觀察[J];臨床和實(shí)驗(yàn)醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2006年07期

9 趙芳;無痛麻醉在口腔治療中的應(yīng)用觀察[J];中原醫(yī)刊;2003年02期

10 汪俊;;如何克服兒童齲病治療過程中的恐懼心理[J];中國實(shí)用口腔科雜志;2008年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1589005