Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Inferior alveolar nerve block by intraosseous injection with QuicksleeperⓇ at the retromolar area in mandibular third molar surgery

  • Sovatdy, Sam (Department of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Vorakulpipat, Chakorn (Department of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Kiattavorncharoen, Sirichai (Department of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Saengsirinavin, Chavengkiat (Department of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Wongsirichat, Natthamet (Department of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University)
  • Received : 2018.10.14
  • Accepted : 2018.11.15
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: There are many techniques of inferior alveolar nerve block injection (IANBI); one among them is the computer-assisted intraosseous injection (CAIOI). Here we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of CAIOI with $Quicksleeper^{(R)}$ in mandibular third molar surgery. Methods: This study is a clinical, single-blind, randomized, split-mouth, controlled trial including 25 patients (10 males and 15 females, mean age 21 years). The patients underwent surgical removal of bilateral mandibular third molars with two different IANBI techniques. One side was injected using $Quicksleeper^{(R)}$, and the other side was injected using a conventional IANBI. Both techniques used one cartridge (1.7 ml) of 1:100,000 epinephrine 4% articaine. A supplementary injection was used if necessary. All volumes of anesthetic agent used were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon test. Results: This research showed that CAIOI has faster onset and shorter duration of action than IANBI (P < 0.05). The pain was similar in both techniques. In the CAIOI group, one-third of the cases could be completed without additional anesthesia. The remaining two-thirds required minimal supplementary volume of anesthesia. The success rates were 68% for CAIOI and 72% for IANBI, respectively. Conclusion: CAIOI is an advantageous anesthetic technique. It can be used as an alternative to conventional IANBI for mandibular third molar surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. Malamed SF. Handbook of Local Anesthesia. 6th ed: St. Louis: Mosby, Elsevier; 2013.
  2. Wong JK. Adjuncts to Anesthesia: Separating Fact to Fiction. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67: 391-7.
  3. Graetz C, Fawzy-El-Sayed KM, Graetz N, Dorfer CE. Root damage induced by intraosseous anesthesia. An in vitro investigation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18: e130-4.
  4. Woodmansey KF, White RK, He J. Osteonecrosis related to intraosseous anesthesia: Report of a case. J Endod 2009; 35: 288-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.002
  5. Remmers T, Glickman G, Spears R, He J. The efficacy of IntraFlow intraosseous injection as a primary anesthesia technique. J Endod 2008; 34: 280-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.12.005
  6. Nusstein J, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 1998; 24: 487-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80053-8
  7. Reisman D, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine in irreversible pulpitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 84: 676-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90372-3
  8. Bigby J, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J. Articaine for supplemental intraosseous anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2006; 32: 1044-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.06.006
  9. Parente SA, Anderson RW, Herman WW, Kimbrough WF, Weller RN. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection for teeth with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 1998; 24: 826-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80011-3
  10. Pereira LA, Groppo FC, Bergamaschi Cde C, Meechan JG, Ramacciato JC, Motta RH, et al. Articaine (4%) with epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) in intraosseous injections in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars: anesthetic efficacy and cardiovascular effects. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: e85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.10.045
  11. Demir E, Ataoglu H. Clinic evaluation of efficacy of transcotical anesthesia for extraction of impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: e100.
  12. Kiattavorncharoen S, Wongsirichat N, Boonsiriseth K. . The anesthesia efficacy of intraosseous injection with $Quicksleeper^{(R)}$ and conventional injection in the lower third molar surgery. M Dent J 2013; 33: 137-43.
  13. Ozer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I. A comparative evaluation of pain and anxiety levels in 2 different anesthesia techniques: locoregional anesthesia using conventional syringe versus intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system ($Quicksleeper^{(R)}$). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 114(5 suppl): S132-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.09.021
  14. Smail-Faugeron V, Muller-Bolla M, Sixou JL, Courson F. Split-mouth and parallel-arm trials to compare pain with intraosseous anaesthesia delivered by the computerised Quicksleeper system and conventional infiltration anaesthesia in paediatric oral healthcare: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2015; 5; e007724. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007724
  15. Gonzalez-Castro O, Arias A. Controlled flow of dental anesthesia solution to reduce pain and anxiety. Int J Clin Anesthesiol 2017; 5: 1075.
  16. Dunbar D, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection after an inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 22: 481-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80083-5
  17. Replogle K, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Weaver J, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) and 3% mepivacaine in mandibular first molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 83: 30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90087-1
  18. Jensen J, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. Anesthetic Efficacy of a Repeated Intraosseous Injection Following a Primary Intraosseous Injection. J Endod 2008; 34: 126-30.
  19. Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha M. Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012; 17: e426-9.
  20. Prohic S, Sulejmanagic H, Secic S. The efficacy of supplemental intraosseous anesthesia after insufficient mandibular block. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2005; 5: 57-60. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2005.3336
  21. Terrer E TF, Coudrec G, Vialatte L, Tramini P, Tassery H. Anesthesie osteo-centrale versus locoregional du bloc du nerf dentaire inferieur. L'information Dentaire 2014; 35: e007724
  22. Cabasse C, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Sixou JL. Computer-assisted intraosseous anaesthesia for molar and incisor hypomineralisation teeth. A preliminary study. Odontostomatol Tro 2015; 38: 5-9.
  23. Couderc G, Weisrock G, Tassery H. L'anesthe'sie transcorticale dans la prise en charge des urgences d'un centre de soins hospitalo-universitaire. Le Fil Dentaire 2009; 43.
  24. Chang H, Noh J, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim TI, et al. Relief of Injection Pain During Delivery of Local Anesthesia by Computer-Controlled Anesthetic Delivery System for Periodontal Surgery: Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial. J Periodontol 2016; 87: 783-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.150448
  25. Han K, Kim J. Intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system during non-surgical periodontal therapy (root planing): Two case reports. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018; 18: 65-9. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.1.65
  26. Kim C, Hwang KG, Park CJ. Local anesthesia for mandibular third molar extraction. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018; 18: 287-94. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.5.287
  27. Demir E, Ataoglu H. Clinic evaluation of efficacy of transcotical anesthesia for extraction of impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: e100.

Cited by

  1. Alternative techniques for failure of conventional inferior alveolar nerve block vol.19, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.3.125