|
Flux (mg.cm-2.h-1) |
P (cm.h-1).103 |
VAS-Insertion (cm) |
VAS-Injection (cm) |
||||
|
mean |
95%CI |
mean |
95%CI |
mean |
95%CI |
Mean |
95%CI |
EMLA® |
0.236 |
7.19 - 11.7 |
9.44 |
7.2 - 11.7 |
1.15 |
0.68 - 1.62 |
1.3 |
0.82 - 1.78 |
Xylocaína® |
0.087 |
0.46 - 2.99 |
1.73 |
0.46 - 2.99 |
2.16 |
1.59 - 2.73 |
2.47 |
1.76 - 3.18 |
LipoLido2.5% |
0.163 |
4.85 - 8.16 |
6.51 |
4.85 - 8.16 |
1.83 |
1.32 - 2.34 |
2.26 |
1.66 - 2.85 |
LipoLido5% |
0.440 |
8.02 - 9.59 |
8.80 |
8.02 - 9.59 |
1.68 |
1.08 - 2.29 |
1.78 |
1.17 - 2.39 |
Results: LipoLido5% and Xylocaína® showed, respectively highest and lowest flux when compared to the other formulations (ANOVA, p<0.05). No statistically significant differences (ANOVA, p>0.05) were observed between EMLA and LipoLido5% regarding P, and both showed higher P than the other formulations. A high (rPearson>0.7, p>0.05) correlation was verified between P and VAS-Injection. There was moderate (rPearson>0.3, p>0.05) correlation between flux and VAS-Insertion; and P and VAS-Insertion. Conclusion: There is a correlation between in vitro and in vivo parameters. In vitro studies could be helpful to predict the effect of topical anesthetic agents.