Electronic dental anaesthesia for third inferior molar surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Electronic Dental Anaesthesia (EDA) for third molar surgery. METHODS: Third molar extraction under regional anaesthesia (inferior alveolar and buccal nerve blocks) was performed in 2 groups of 30 patients each: group 1 = controls, group 2 = EDA treatment. Anxiety and pain level were reported by means of Visual Analogue Scale, postoperative pain description with the McGill Pain Questionnaire. A postoperative phone interview to all patients was made. Computerized randomization was performed; values expressed as mean+/-SD, data comparison evaluated by means of ANOVA and chi squared, statistical significance indicated by P values <0.05. RESULTS: Features of the patients and surgical interventions were similar. EDA has determined lower pain level; moreover, the control patients has shown higher values of blood pressure and heart frequency. Phone interview has reported no amnesia about the perioperative events. A smaller number of EDA treated patients has reported pain during needle prick and/or intraoperatively; 80% of the EDA treated patients has reported a good opinion about the treatment, 93% of the patients would repeat the treatment, if needed. CONCLUSION: EDA is a complementary analgesic technique for dental surgery. Cardiovascular changes, frequently observed during third molar extraction, were not present in the EDA treated patients. These data confirm that EDA is able to modify the physiologic responses to stressful events, blunting the adrenergic upset, maybe by means of an analgesic action on A, fiber and an increase of endorphins' central level. These results underline that the complementary use of EDA in the third molar extraction may be better than regional anaesthesia alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".