Addition of morphine to local anesthetic infiltration does not improve analgesia after pediatric dental extractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid receptors have been noted in the peripheral nerve endings of afferent neurons. Blockade of these receptors with peripherally administered opioids is believed to result in analgesia. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we studied the analgesic effects of adding a subsystemic dose of morphine to local anesthetic infiltration (lidocaine hydrochloride) during pediatric dental extractions. Forty-two subjects, aged 2-7 years of ASA physical status I-II, were randomized to receive submucous infiltration with either morphine 25 microg.kg(-1) in 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1 : 1 00 000 epinephrine (morphine group) or 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1 : 1 00 000 epinephrine (control group) at the end of surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in postoperative analgesic requirements within the first 24 h. In-hospital acetaminophen consumption was 85% in the morphine group compared with 81% in the control group. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no benefit of adding a subsystemic analgesic dose of morphine to local anesthetics for analgesia after dental extractions in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".