English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compared the buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 200,000 epinephrine without a palatal injection for the extraction of impacted maxillary third molars with chronic pericoronitis. This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involved 30 patients between the ages of 15 and 46 years who desired extraction of a partially impacted upper third molar with pericoronitis. Group 1 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine and group 2 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine by buccal infiltration. None of the patients in group 1 reported pain, but 3 patients in group 2 reported pain, which indicated a need for a supplementary palatal injection. The palatal injections were all successful in eliminating the pain. Two additional patients in group 2 experienced pain when the suture needle penetrated their palatal mucosa. Based on these results, 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine was found to be more effective for the removal of upper third molars in the presence of pericoronitis than 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine when only a buccal infiltration was used.

anesthesia progress

Comparison of Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine With 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine for Extraction of Maxillary Third Molars With Pericoronitis: A Pilot Study