Anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial
- 165 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare the onset, success rate, injection pain, and post-injection pain of mental/incisive nerve block (MINB) with that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The accuracy of electrical pulp test (EPT) in determining pulpal anesthesia was also examined.
Materials and methods
The study was designed as a randomized clinical trial with two study arms—MINB and IANB. Injections were performed using a standardized technique. Root canal treatment was initiated 10 min after the injection. Success was defined as no pain or mild pain during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. Injection pain and post-injection pain (up to 7 days) were recorded. All pain ratings were done using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP VAS).
Sixty-four patients were enrolled. The success rate of MINB (93.8%) was higher than IANB (81.2%) but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The onset of anesthesia with MINB was significantly quicker, and injection pain was significantly less (p < 0.05), but post-injection pain was significantly higher during the first 4 days (p < 0.001). The accuracy of EPT in determining pulpal anesthesia was 96.88%.
MINB and IANB with 4% articaine had similar efficacy in anesthetizing mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis. Post-injection pain with MINB was higher than with IANB.
MINB and IANB with 4% articaine can be used interchangeably to anesthetize mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis.
Keywords4% articaine Local anesthesia Mental/incisive nerve block Inferior alveolar nerve block Pain
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Prashant Verma, at University of Maryland School of Dentistry, for the scientific and grammar editing of the manuscript.
This work was supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed involving human participants in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, Kohli S (2016) Comparative evaluation of mental incisal nerve block, inferior alveolar nerve block, and their combination on the anesthetic success rate in symptomatic mandibular premolars: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Endod 42:843–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Malamed S (2013) Handbook of local anesthesia. 6th ed. Elsevier Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
- 27.Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, Kohli S, Singh S (2012) Comparative evaluation of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized single-blind study. J Endod 38:753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Gaffen AS, Haas DA (2009) Retrospective review of voluntary reports of nonsurgical paresthesia in dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 75:579Google Scholar