Is Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Needed to Perform Implant Surgery in the Posterior Mandible? A Randomized Controlled Trial
| Autor: | A. Bernabeu-Esclapez, G. Esteve-Pardo, A. Salgado, J.A. Bardaji, L. Esteve-Colomina, E. De-Larriva |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Anesthesia Dental Mandibular Nerve medicine.medical_treatment Dentistry Carticaine Mandible Inferior alveolar nerve Osteotomy Articaine law.invention Mental foramen Patient satisfaction Double-Blind Method Suture (anatomy) Randomized controlled trial law medicine Humans Prospective Studies Anesthetics Local Dental Implants business.industry Pulpitis Nerve Block Middle Aged Molar medicine.anatomical_structure Otorhinolaryngology Anesthetic Female Surgery Oral Surgery business medicine.drug |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 80:490-500 |
| ISSN: | 0278-2391 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.joms.2021.09.028 |
| Popis: | 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 1:100,000. 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 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 1:100,000 appears to be sufficient. Further research is needed to check if these results are extensible to other anesthetic drugs. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|