Plasma variations in stress markers: clinical trial of two anesthetics used in regional block in the extraction of impacted inferior third molars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Was to evaluate the effect of different regional anesthetics (articaine with epinephrine versus prilocaine with felypressin) on stress in the extraction of impacted lower third molars in healthy subjects. STUDY DESIGN: [corrected] A prospective single-blind, split-mouth cross-over randomized study was designed, with a control group. The experimental group consisted of 24 otherwise healthy male volunteers, with two impacted lower third molars which were surgically extracted after inferior alveolar nerve block (regional anesthesia), with a fortnight's interval: the right using 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine, and the left 3% prilocaine with 1:1.850.000 felypressin. Patients were randomized for the first surgical procedure. To analyze the variation in four stress markers, homovanillic acid, 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol, prolactin and cortisol, 10-mL blood samples were obtained at t = 0, 5, 60, and 120 minutes. The control group consisted of 12 healthy volunteers, who did not undergo either extractions or anesthetic procedures but from whom blood samples were collected and analyzed in the same way. RESULTS: Plasma cortisol increased in the experimental group (multiple range test, P<0.05), the levels being significantly higher in the group receiving 3% prilocaine with 1:1.850,000 felypressin (signed rank test, p<0.0007). There was a significant reduction in homovanillic acid over time in both groups (multiple range test, P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in homovanillic acid, 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol or prolactin concentrations between the experimental and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of regional anesthesia on stress is lower when 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is used in this surgical procedure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".