scholarly journals Efficacy of exclusive lingual nerve block versus conventional inferior alveolar nerve block in achieving lingual soft-tissue anesthesia

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasikala Balasubramanian ◽  
Elavenil Paneerselvam ◽  
T Guruprasad ◽  
M Pathumai ◽  
Simin Abraham ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 456-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ülkü Şermet Elbay ◽  
Mesut Elbay ◽  
Emine Kaya ◽  
Sinem Yıldırım

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy, injection pain, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and postoperative complications of two different anesthetics (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 3% plain mepivacaine) in pediatric patients in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) administered by a computer-controlled delivery system (CCDS). Study Design: The study was conducted as a randomized, controlled-crossover, double-blind clinical trial with 60 children requiring bilateral pulpotomy or extraction of primary mandibular molars. A CCDS was used to deliver 3% mepivacaine to 1 primary tooth and 2% lidocaine to the contralateral tooth with an IANB technique. Severity of pain and efficacy of anesthesia were evaluated using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale, and comfort and side effects were assessed using a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon t, and Fisher exact tests. Results: Patients receiving 2% lidocaine experienced significantly less pain during injection than those receiving 3% mepivacaine, and no significant differences were found in the pain scores during treatments or in postoperative complications between the two anesthetics. The mean durations of anesthesia for 3% mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were 139.68 minutes and 149.10 minutes, respectively. Conclusions: Plain mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were similarly effective in pulpotomy and the extraction of primary mandibular molars. Although the use of 3% mepivacaine provided a shorter duration of anesthesia than 2% lidocaine, both solutions showed similar results in terms of postoperative complications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 1061-1065
Author(s):  
Sin-Yeon Cho ◽  
Wonwoo Choi ◽  
Junyoung Kim ◽  
Sung-Taek Kim ◽  
Hee-Jin Kim ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Jessica Purefoy Johnson ◽  
Robert Karl Peckham ◽  
Conor Rowan ◽  
Alan Wolfe ◽  
John Mark O’Leary

Blinded techniques to desensitize the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) include intraoral, angled, and vertical extraoral approaches with reported success rates of 100%, 73%, and 59%, respectively. It has not been determined whether an ultrasound-guided extraoral approach is feasible. Further, the fascicular nature of the inferior alveolar and lingual nerves of the horse has not been described. The objectives of this study were to describe a low-volume ultrasound-guided vertical extraoral inferior alveolar nerve block technique and to describe the fascicular nature of these nerves. An ultrasound-guided approach to the IAN was conducted with a microconvex transducer and an 18-G, 15-cm spinal needle using a solution containing iodinated-contrast and methylene blue dye. Accuracy was assessed by contrast visualized at the mandibular foramen on computed tomography (CT) and methylene blue dye staining of the nerves on gross dissection. Sections of inferior alveolar and lingual nerves were submitted for histological analysis. Assessment by CT and dissection determined success rates of 81.3% and 68.8%, respectively; 68.8% of injections had inadvertent methylene blue dye staining of the lingual nerve. Nerve histology revealed both the inferior alveolar and lingual nerves to be multifascicular in nature. Mean fascicle counts for the inferior alveolar and lingual nerves were 29 and 30.8, respectively. The technique is challenging and no more accurate than previously published blinded techniques. Any extraoral approach to the IAN is likely to also desensitize the lingual nerve.


Author(s):  
Bahaa R. Youssef ◽  
Andreas Söhnel ◽  
Alexander Welk ◽  
Mohamed H. Abudrya ◽  
Mohamed Baider ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To compare the effectiveness and complications of intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) with conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) during injection and dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth. Materials and methods In this randomized, prospective clinical trial, 72 patients (39 males, 33 females), scheduled for dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth, were randomly allocated to ILA group (n = 35) received ILA injection or IANB group (n = 37) received the conventional IANB. Our primary outcome was to assess pain and stress (discomfort) during the injection and dental treatment, using the numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10= the worst pain imaginable), whereas recording 24-h postoperative complications was our secondary outcomes. Results Patients in ILA group reported significantly less pain during injection when compared with IANB group (p = 0.03), while pain during dental treatment was similar in both groups (p = 0.2). Patients in both groups also reported similar law values of discomfort during treatment (p = 0.7). Although no signs of nerve contact or any other postoperative complications were observed, five patients in IANB group (none in ILA group) reported temporary irritations. Conclusion This study showed equivalent effectiveness of both intraligamentary anesthesia and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, for pain control during routine dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth. Nevertheless, ILA showed significantly less pain during injection. No major postoperative complications in both groups were observed. Clinical relevance ILA could be considered as an effective alternative for routine dental treatment. Trial registration NCT04563351


2013 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Swee ◽  
Anthony R. Silvestri ◽  
Matthew D. Finkelman ◽  
Alfred P. Rich ◽  
Stanley A. Alexander ◽  
...  

BDJ ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 202 (7) ◽  
pp. 395-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ethunandan ◽  
A. L. Tran ◽  
R. Anand ◽  
J. Bowden ◽  
M. T. Seal ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document