Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Is Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Needed to Perform Implant Surgery in the Posterior Mandible? A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Esteve-Pardo, G; De-Larriva, E; Salgado, A; Bernabeu-Esclapez, A; Bardaji, J A; Esteve-Colomina, L.
Afiliación
  • Esteve-Pardo G; Private Practice, Master Degree in Biotechnology and Bioengineering in Bioengineering Institute, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain.
  • De-Larriva E; Private practice at Madrid, Spain.
  • Salgado A; Private Practice, Teaching Assistant, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain.
  • Bernabeu-Esclapez A; Private practice, Elche, Spain.
  • Bardaji JA; Private practice, Assistant Professor, Periodontology & Osseointegration Department, Universidad Católica, Valencia, Spain.
  • Esteve-Colomina L; Private Practice, Master Degree in Biotechnology and Bioengineering in Bioengineering Institute, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain. Electronic address: guillemjoes@hotmail.com.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 80(3): 490-500, 2022 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34762850
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

There is no agreement in the literature on whether inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) or infiltration (INF) is the anesthetic technique of choice for placing implants in the posterior mandible. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the 2 techniques using articaine 4% with epinephrine 1100,000. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

The trial was a comparison between 2 parallel groups of patients, who received implants distal to the mental foramen, either with IANB or INF. The anesthetic technique was the predictor variable. The primary outcome was patients' perceived pain by a numerical rating scale (NRS) in incision, osteotomy and suture. The secondary outcome, patients' satisfaction, was equally recorded 12 hours after surgery. The dataset were first analyzed by descriptive statistics. Then, Mann-Whitney test, Spearman's coefficient, and regression models were used. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS:

Ninety-six patients (41 men, 55 women, mean age 55.76 years) were randomly assigned to either group, IANB or INF, of 48 patients each. Only 20% of patients reported pain values >0 (range 0-4 of 10). Medians were 0 (0-0) for both groups (P = .956, .175 and .908, incision, osteotomy and suture, respectively). Mean satisfaction was high in both groups, 9.0 ± 1.0, median 10; and 8.8 ± 1.7, median 9, for IANB and INF (P = .695). Hence, the anesthetic technique did not generate statistically significant differences. Five potential influencing variables that were measured did not significantly affect pain levels or patient satisfaction in either group.

CONCLUSIONS:

According to the results, an IANB might not be necessary for standard implant surgery in the posterior mandible, and infiltration of articaine 4% with epinephrine 1100,000 appears to be sufficient. Further research is needed to check if these results are extensible to other anesthetic drugs.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Pulpitis / Implantes Dentales / Anestesia Dental / Bloqueo Nervioso Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Pulpitis / Implantes Dentales / Anestesia Dental / Bloqueo Nervioso Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España