{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027993779160186624, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01166407465007776, 'mean_word_length': 5.099526066350711, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Local anaesthetic infiltration for surgical exodontia of third molar teeth: a double-blind study comparing bupivacaine infiltration with i.v. ketorolac.

We studied 40 patients undergoing surgical removal of at least two third molar teeth under general anaesthesia. Patients were allocated randomly to one of two groups: group B (n = 20) received bupivacaine up to 2 mg kg-1, infiltrated around the inferior alveolar nerves bilaterally, and group K (n = 20) received ketorolac 10 mg i.v. at the start of surgery. There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative pain scores measured at 1 h using a visual analogue scale. Group K had a significantly lower incidence of side effects related to intraoral anaesthesia. Swallowing, speech and oral continence were significantly better. Group K scored higher for overall patient satisfaction, measured using a visual analogue scale. We failed to demonstrate any difference in early postoperative recovery (coughing, laryngospasm, stridor or arterial oxygen desaturation) between the groups. We conclude that the use of 0.5% bupivacaine infiltration was no more effective than a single 10-mg injection of ketorolac while giving rise to a higher rate of "minor" airway complications and lower patient acceptability.