• 대한치과마취과학회지
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.108-115
• /
• 2009

Trauma to any nerve may lead to persistent paresthesia. Trauma to the nerve sheath can be produced by the needle. The patient frequently reports the sensation of an electric shock throughout the distribution of the nerve involved. It is difficult for the type of needle used in dental practice to actually sever a nerve trunk or even its fibers. Trauma to the nerve produced by contact with the needle is all that is needed to produce paresthesia. Hemorrhage into or around the neural sheath is another cause. Bleeding increases pressure on the nerve, leading to paresthesia. Injection of local anesthetic solutions contaminated by alcohol or sterilizing solution near a nerve produces irritation; the resulting edema increases pressure in the region of the nerve, leading to paresthesia. Persistent paresthesia can lead to injury to adjacent tissues. Biting or thermal or chemical insult can occur without a patient's awareness, until the process has progressed to a serious degree. Most paresthesias resolve in approximately 8 weeks without treatment. In most situations paresthesia is only minimal, with the patient retaining most sensory function to the affected area. In these cases there is only a very slight possibility of self injury. But, the patient complaints the discomfort symptoms of paresthesia, such as causalgia, neuralgiaform pain and anesthesia dolorosa. Most paresthesias involve the lingual nerve, with the inferior alveolar nerve a close second. This is the report of a case, that had the persistent paresthesia care on left lingual & buccal shelf regions after the lingual and long buccal nerve block anesthesia.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.213-220
• /
• 2023

Background: Third molar extraction is the most commonly performed minor oral surgical procedure in outpatient settings and requires regional anesthesia for pain control. Extraction of the maxillary molars commonly requires both posterior superior alveolar nerve block (PSANB) and greater palatine nerve block (GPNB), depending on the nerve innervations of the subject teeth. We aimed to study the effectiveness of PSANB alone in maxillary third molar (MTM) extraction. Methods: A sample size comprising 100 erupted and semi-erupted MTM was selected and subjected to study for extraction. Under strict aseptic conditions, the patients were subjected to the classical local anesthesia technique of PSANB alone with 2% lignocaine hydrochloride and adrenaline 1:80,000. After a latency period of 10 min, objective assessment of the buccal and palatal mucosa was performed. A numerical rating scale and visual analog scale were used. Results: In the post-latency period of 10 min, the depth of anesthesia obtained in our sample on the buccal side extended from the maxillary tuberosity posteriorly to the mesial of the first premolar (15%), second premolar (41%), and first molar (44%). This inferred that anesthesia was effectively high until the first molars and was less effective further anteriorly due to nerve innervation. The depth of anesthesia on the palatal aspect was up to the first molar (33%), second molar (67%), and lateromedially; 6% of the patients received anesthesia only to the alveolar region, whereas 66% received up to 1.5 cm to the mid-palatal raphe. In 5% of the cases, regional anesthesia was re-administered. An additional 1.8 ml PSANB was required in four patients, and another patient was administered a GPNB in addition to the PSANB during the time of extraction and elevation. Conclusion: The results of our study emphasize that PSANB alone is sufficient for the extraction of MTM in most cases, thereby obviating the need for poorly tolerated palatal injections.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.278-290
• /
• 1997

The purposes of this study were to evaluate and compare the pulpal anesthesia induced by an inferior alveolar nerve block and that by Gow-Gates technique, and to investigate the relationship between pulpal anesthesia and intraoral soft tissue responses. After one side of mandibule was anesthetized with inferior alveolar nerve block or Gow-Gates technique using 2 % lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in 19 volunteers of ages between 24 and 29 (16 males and 3 females, average age 25.9 yrs.), electric pulp tests were done on the canine teeth of the anesthetized side and contralateral one before, at 1 min, continued at every 5 minutes until 60 min, and every 10 minutes until 100 min after completion of local anesthetic injection. Degree of pulpal anesthesia was classified as anesthetic failure, possible anesthesia and complete anesthesia by the criteria based on the thresholds to electric pulp test of contralateral canine and the currents of the electric pulp tester. Subjective signs on the lower lip and tongue were checked and prick-pin tests were done on the buccal gingiva of the first molar, buccal and lingual gingiva of the canine tooth at 5, 10 and 20 min after the completion of anesthetic injection. Thresholds to electric pulp test, degree of pulpal anesthesia and relationship between the pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue responses were analyzed with SPSS, paired t-test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test and correlation analysis. The results were as follows : No significant differences were found in the peak thresholds to electric pulp test, in the induction time to it and in the depth of pulpal anesthesia between inferior alveolar nerve block and Gow-Gates technique (p>0.05). There was no significant relationship between pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue responses in both inferior nerve block and Gow-Gates technique.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• 제46권1호
• /
• pp.9.1-9.9
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS). Materials and Methods: This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (n = 28). After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:80,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP. Conclusions: Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.179-186
• /
• 2020

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.61-69
• /
• 2021

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars. Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception. Results: The independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2019

Periodontal procedures require adequate anesthesia not only to ensure the patient's comfort but also to enhance the operator's performance and minimize chair time. In the maxilla, anesthesia is often achieved using highly traumatic nerve blocks, apart from multiple local infiltrations through the buccal vestibule. In recent years, anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) field block has been claimed to be a less traumatic alternative to several of these conventional injections, and it has many other advantages. This critical review of the existing literature aimed to discuss the rationale, mechanism, effectiveness, extent, and duration of AMSA injections for periodontal surgical and non-surgical procedures in the maxilla. It also focused on future prospects, particularly in relation to computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery systems, which aim to achieve the goal of pain-free anesthesia. A literature search of different databases was performed to retrieve relevant articles related to AMSA injections. After analyzing the existing data, it can be concluded that this anesthetic technique may be used as a predictable method of effective palatal anesthesia with adequate duration for different periodontal procedures. It has additional advantages of being less traumatic, requiring lesser amounts of local anesthetics and vasoconstrictors, as well as achieving good hemostasis. However, its effect on the buccal periodontium appears highly unpredictable.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• 제46권3호
• /
• pp.41.1-41.23
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application. Results: The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates. Conclusions: Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.213-221
• /
• 2020

Background: Complications following impacted third molar surgery significantly affect patients' quality of life during the immediate postoperative period. This study aimed to achieve the proper anesthesia method by comparing the effect of the application of lidocaine alone with the application of lidocaine and articaine simultaneously in reducing the complications during and following impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Methods: The study design was a split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted on 13 patients (26 samples) referred for elective surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar with similar difficulty on both sides. Each patient underwent similar surgical procedures on two separate appointments. Each patient randomly received 2% lidocaine for conventional inferior alveolar nerve block and 4% articaine for local infiltration before the surgery on one side (group A) and 2% lidocaine alone (for both block anesthesia and infiltration) before the surgery on the other side (group B). Intraoperative and postoperative variables for both groups were established and statistically analyzed. Results: The findings showed that pain on the first day after surgery in group A was significantly lower than that in group B. The patients in group A mentioned experiencing less discomfort following the surgery. The increased horizontal swelling on the first and third days following surgery and oblique swelling on the seventh day in patients in group B were statistically significant. Conclusion: Choosing an appropriate anesthetic drug for oral surgery, specifically impacted third molar surgery, is dependent on the clinician's opinion, however; it seems that the combination of lidocaine and articaine may control the patient's pain significantly better than lidocaine alone.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제19권6호
• /
• pp.323-341
• /
• 2019

Background: Local anesthetics alone or in combination with adjuncts, such as oral medications, have routinely been used for pain control during endodontic treatment. The best clinical choice amongst the vast numbers of agents and techniques available for pain control for irreversible pulpitis is unclear. This network meta-analysis combined the available evidence on agents and techniques for pulpal anesthesia in the maxilla and mandible, in order to identify the best amongst these approaches statistically, as a basis for future clinical trials. Methods: Randomized trials in MEDLINE, DARE, and COCHRANE databases were screened based on inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed and odds ratios were used to estimate effects. Inconsistencies between direct and indirect pooled estimates were evaluated by H-statistics. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach was used to assess evidence quality. Results: Sixty-two studies (nine studies in the maxilla and 53 studies in the mandible) were included in the meta-analysis. Increased mandibular pulpal anesthesia success was observed on premedication with aceclofenac + paracetamol or supplemental 4% articaine buccal infiltration or ibuprofen+paracetamol premedication, all the above mentioned with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). No significant difference was noted for any of the agents investigated in terms of the success rate of maxillary pulpal anesthesia. Conclusion: Direct and indirect comparisons indicated that some combinations of IANB with premedication and/or supplemental infiltration had a greater chance of producing successful mandibular pulpal anesthesia. No ideal technique for maxillary anesthesia emerged. Randomized clinical trials with increased sample size may be needed to provide more conclusive data. Our findings suggest that further high-quality studies are required in order to provide definitive direction to clinicians regarding the best agents and techniques to use for mandibular and maxillary anesthesia for irreversible pulpitis.