Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions
Do you wish to request the book?
A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions
2011
Overview
The development of local anesthesia in dentistry has marked the beginning of a new era in terms of pain control. Lignocaine is the most commonly used local anesthetic (LA) agent even though it has a vasodilative effect and needs to be combined with adrenaline. Centbucridine is a non-ester, non amide group LA and has not been comprehensively studied in the dental setting and the objective was to compare it to Lignocaine. This was a randomized study comparing the onset time, duration, depth and cardiovascular parameters between Centbucridine (0.5%) and Lignocaine (2%). The study was conducted in the dental outpatient department at the Government Dental College in India on patients attending for the extraction of lower molars. A total of 198 patients were included and there were no significant differences between the LAs except those who received Centbucridine reported a significantly longer duration of anesthesia compared to those who received Lignocaine. None of the patients reported any side effects. Centbucridine was well tolerated and its substantial duration of anesthesia could be attributed to its chemical compound. Centbucridine can be used for dental procedures and can confidently be used in patients who cannot tolerate Lignocaine or where adrenaline is contraindicated.
Publisher
Hindawi Limiteds,Hindawi Puplishing Corporation,Hindawi Publishing Corporation,Wiley
Subject
