Effect of topical application of amitriptyline and nortriptyline on irreversible pulpitis pain in teeth with failed pulpal anesthesia after a successful inferior alveolar nerve block: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: No consensus has been reached on the effect of topical application of amitriptyline and nortriptyline on irreversible pulpitis pain in teeth with failed pulpal anesthesia after a successful inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block. This study aimed to assess the effect of topical application of amitriptyline and nortriptyline on irreversible pulpitis pain in teeth with failed pulpal anesthesia after a successful IAN block. Materials and Methods: This double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients with irreversible pulpitis. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups ( n = 15) for topical application of 10 mg amitriptyline, 10 mg nortriptyline, and starch (placebo). An IAN block was primarily administered by injection of lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Next, the abovementioned medications were topically applied in each group. The pain level of patients was quantified by the McGill Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (FPRS) before the intervention, immediately after injection, and after topical application of materials and compared. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 using the Chi-square test, likelihood ratio, one-way ANOVA, repeated-measures ANOVA, and the Kruskal–Wallis test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: All three interventions significantly decreased pain ( P < 0.05). Although nortriptyline caused a greater pain relief, the difference among the three groups was not significant regarding the VAS or Wong–Baker FPRS scores ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Although nortriptyline caused a greater reduction in irreversible pulpitis pain than amitriptyline, the difference between the two medications was not significant. Future studies without a placebo group are recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".