• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.269-282
• /
• 2021

This review aimed to assess and compare the outcomes of the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block (GGMNB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. A descriptive systematic review of quantitative research was conducted wherein the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)" was adopted, and the Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention/Indicator, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) criteria were used to structure the research question. A literature search was performed using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Ovid. Selection criteria were applied for populations over nine years of age, of either sex, with irreversible pulpitis, and articles published in English regarding conventional IANB or IANB and Gow-Gates techniques between 2009 and 2019. Prospective randomized clinical trials or randomized controlled trials were included in the review, in which anesthetic efficacy or success was measured. After screening, four articles were included. Three studies were randomized clinical trials, and two were randomized controlled trials. The validity and reliability of the individual studies were examined. There was evidence of the higher efficacy of the GGMNB technique than that of the IANB technique. However, both techniques can be mastered through training.

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.16-21
• /
• 2011

Background: Since introduced by Gow-Gates GA in 1973, Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block (GMNB) has played an important role in the area of dental local anesthesia. However, compared to the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), this technique seems to fail to attract the attentions of general practitioners in South Korea. The aim of this study was to prove the clinical real value, mainly the anesthetic efficacy, of GMNB in minor oral surgery. Methods: The study group comprised 40 patients (15 males and 25 females) who were randomly allocated to receive GMNB or IANB for extraction of third molars. Both techniques utilized two 1.8 ml dental cartridges of 2% lidocaine including 1:100,000 epinephrine for each patient. Pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia of mandibular premolars and molars were recorded at 0, 15 and 40 minutes after administration of local anesthetics using both an electric pulp tester and a sharp dental explorer. Results: The success rates of pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia in the IANB group were not significantly different from the GMNB group in overall efficacy. Patient's and operator's satisfaction ratings were also not significantly different between two groups. Interestingly, the injection pain of GMNB group was significantly lower than that of IANB group. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the anesthetic efficacy of pulpal and gingival tissue of GMNB was not inferior to that of IANB. The GMNB could be a good alternative of the IANB in most of minor oral surgical procedures.