Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Amorim, Klinger de Souza
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Souza, Liane Maciel de Almeida |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Sergipe
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
|
| Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://ri.ufs.br/handle/riufs/5879
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: Pain control is a constant concern for the health and local anesthetics are widely used for this purpose. The effectiveness of topical anesthetics has been greatly improved with the liposomal technology. The use of local anesthetics encapsulated in liposomes has the advantage of the slow release of the drug, prolonging duration of anesthesia and reducing toxicity to the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system.Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy of topical anesthesia between gels Prilocaine 2.5% + Lidocaine 2.5% encapsulated in liposomes (GEL 1) with the formulation of Prilocaine 2.5% + Lidocaine 2.5% gel(GEL 2) in anesthesia of palatal mucosa of molars. Materials and methods: It is a triple blind study, parallel and randomized, were selected 80 individuals who required upper molar extraction. The volunteers received topical formulation according the randomization. A second researcher applied the topical formulation and carried out the extraction. During the procedure another researcher made note of the time that there was pain, when it did occur. Data were tabulated and submitted to a statistical analysis. It was considered the significance level of 5%. Results: There was statistically significant differences (Fisher exact test, p <0.0001) between the groups in relation to the success observed, and the GEL 1 group showed significantly more successful than GEL 2.In addition, there were no statistically significant differences (unpaired t test, p = 0.9486) between the groups considering the time taken for the procedure in GEL 1 group (14.1 ± 7.8 minutes) and GEL 2 (14.0 ± 6, 3 minutes), indicating that this factor does not interfere with the results. Conclusion: The association in GEL 1 was more effective than the GEL 2. The GEL 1 formulation proved to be able to anesthetize the palatal mucosa and sufficient to carry out extraction of maxillary molars. |
