MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935564445 · doi:10.1111/cid.12005

High Volume Local Anesthesia as a Postoperative Factor of Pain and Swelling in Dental Implants

2012· article· en· W1935564445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mariano Sánchez‐Siles, Luis Carlos Torres‐Diez, Fabio Camacho‐Alonso, Noemí Salazar‐Sánchez, Jose Francisco Ballester Ferrandis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSwellingAnesthesiaImplantLocal anestheticLocal anesthesiaAnestheticPatient satisfactionSurgeryVisual analogue scaleDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the administration of high-volume local anesthesia can influence postoperative pain and swelling, and the degree of patient satisfaction, following dental implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred patients (45 women and 55 men) between 19 and 80 years old were divided into two groups: group A (n = 50, with placement of an implant using an atraumatic approach in each patient, with sub-periosteal injection of a volume of Ultracain(®) ≤0.9 mL [half a carpule]) and group B (n = 50, involving the same surgical procedure but infiltrating a local anesthetic volume of ≥7.2 mL [four carpules]). Visual analog scales were used in all patients to rate intraoperative pain and postoperative pain and swelling. After the first week, the patients completed a questionnaire evaluating satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: The intraoperative pain scores were similar in both groups (p = 0.363), while the postoperative pain and swelling scores were significantly lower in group A at all time points. Patient rated satisfaction with the surgical treatment was higher in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Excess injected volume of local anesthetic in dental implant surgery has a negative impact upon both postoperative pain and swelling, and on patient rated satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207