Comparison of Infiltration (INF) and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) Injection Techniques in Bilateral Therapeutic Removal of Mandibular Premolars

Overview

Journal J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2022 Jan 24

PMID 35070181

Authors

Balamurugan Rajendran

Sahana Pushpa Thaneraj

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the anesthetic effect of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) techniques for bilateral therapeutic extraction of mandibular premolars. One hundred patients requiring bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars were included in the study. For the extraction of the mandibular right premolar tooth, INF was used, and after one week, the mandibular left premolar tooth was extracted using the IANB. The effect of anesthesia between the two techniques was compared and evaluated by ANOVA using SPSS. INF was successful in 78% of cases, whereas IANB was successful only in 22% of cases. Furthermore, INF had a significantly better anesthetic effect than IANB ( < 0.05). During pain assessment during the anesthetic drug injection and the procedure, two patients in the INF and five patients in the IANB group reported minimal pain during extraction ( > 0.05). The onset of the anesthetic effect was faster in the INF group, while the duration of the effect was longer in the IANB group. INF was a more efficacious local anesthetic technique with high success rate than the IANB technique.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Pain Perception Between Local Infiltration and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Techniques in Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Lower Premolar Extractions.

H A, Krishna V, Lakshmanan S, Krishnan M, Kumar S Cureus. 2023; 15(11):e48794.

PMID: 38098898 PMC: 10720689. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48794.

References

Gregorio L, Giglio F, Sakai V, Modena K, Colombini B, Calvo A . A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(1):19-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024. View

El-Kholey K . Infiltration anesthesia for extraction of the mandibular molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 71(10):1658.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.06.203. View

Yilmaz K, Tunga U, Ozyurek T . Buccal infiltration versus inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular 2 premolars with irreversible pulpitis. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018; 21(4):473-477. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_135_17. View

Flanagan D . The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations. Local Reg Anesth. 2016; 9:1-6. PMC: 4694664. DOI: 10.2147/LRA.S94647. View

Thiem D, Schnaith F, Van Aken C, Kontges A, Kumar V, Al-Nawas B . Extraction of mandibular premolars and molars: comparison between local infiltration via pressure syringe and inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 22(3):1523-1530. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2251-7. View

Santos C, Modena K, Giglio F, Sakai V, Calvo A, Colombini B . Epinephrine concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) does not affect the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65(12):2445-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.020. View

Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck F . Anesthetic efficacy of different volumes of lidocaine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Gen Dent. 2003; 50(4):372-5; quiz 376-7. View

Shabazfar N, Daublander M, Al-Nawas B, Kammerer P . Periodontal intraligament injection as alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block--meta-analysis of the literature from 1979 to 2012. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(2):351-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1113-1. View

Corbett I, Kanaa M, Whitworth J, G Meechan J . Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars. J Endod. 2008; 34(5):514-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.042. View

10.

Cohen H, Cha B, Spangberg L . Endodontic anesthesia in mandibular molars: a clinical study. J Endod. 1993; 19(7):370-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81366-X. View

11.

Colombini B, Modena K, Calvo A, Sakai V, Giglio F, Dionisio T . Articaine and mepivacaine efficacy in postoperative analgesia for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102(2):169-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.003. View

12.

Takasugi Y, Furuya H, Moriya K, Okamoto Y . Clinical evaluation of inferior alveolar nerve block by injection into the pterygomandibular space anterior to the mandibular foramen. Anesth Prog. 2001; 47(4):125-9. PMC: 2149033. View

13.

Yadav S . Anesthetic success of supplemental infiltration in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18(3):182-6. PMC: 4450520. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.157238. View

14.

Sierra Rebolledo A, Delgado Molina E, Berini Aytis L, Gay Escoda C . Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007; 12(2):E139-44. View

15.

Bataineh A, Alwarafi M . Patient's pain perception during mandibular molar extraction with articaine: a comparison study between infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(8):2241-2250. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1712-8. View

16.

Claffey E, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J . Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 2004; 30(8):568-71. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000125317.21892.8f. View