Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Three Local Anesthetics: Lidocaine, Prilocaine, and Mepivacaine on Blood Pressure Changes in Patients with Controlled Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given large number of patients with hypertension attending dental clinics and the profound effects of local anesthetics containing vasoconstrictors, this study aimed to compare the effects of lidocaine 2% + epinephrine, prilocaine 3% + felypressin0.03, and mepivacaine 3% on blood pressure changes. METHODS: The current study was carried out from May 2014 to February 2015.Patients with controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure<159.94 mmHg before the injection) who attended Zahedan dental school (Zahedan , Iran) for the extraction of a mandibular tooth were selected and randomly allocated to three groups of 20. Groups 1-3 received lidocaine 2% + epinephrine, prilocaine 3% + felypressin 0.03 units, and mepivacaine3%, respectively. Patients were only included if they were injected with a maximum of two 1.8 ml cartridges (3.6 ml) for tooth extraction (maximum epinephrine dose of 0.04 mg was maintained in systemic patients).The collected data were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS 19.0. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the systolic and diastolic blood pressure of the three groups. The three evaluated local anesthetic solutions had similar effects in patients with controlled hypertension. CONCLUSION: While no significant changes in blood pressure were observed in three groups, all dental procedures on the mentioned group of patients have to be performed under careful monitoring and aspiration. Moreover, the maximum epinephrine dose (0.04mg) should never be exceeded in these patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".