Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for the removal of posterior mandibular teeth with 2% lidocaine: a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The present systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the IANB (conventional inferior alveolar nerve block) technique is superior to the VA (Vazirani-Akinosi) or GG (Gow-Gates) techniques for anesthesia in the removal of posterior mandibular teeth.

Materials and methods

This systematic review was structured according to the PICO strategy, adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and was recorded on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO—CRD42020153130). Studies were included based on the eligibility criteria and data from the included studies were collected by one author, while another reviewed the compilation.

Results

Eight studies were included, all of which were randomized controlled trials. Three studies tested the techniques by exclusively performing lower third molar removal; the others covered other posterior lower teeth. All studies used the same local anesthetic and the same vasoconstrictor: lidocaine 2% with epinephrine/adrenaline. A total of 1056 patients were evaluated.

Conclusions

Some differences were observed between the techniques. Because of the heterogeneity between studies, clinical trials with more specific methodologies, such as comparisons of GG and VA with IANB for mandibular tooth removal, and the same clinical homogeneity will be worthwhile.

Clinical relevance

A systematic review of which anesthetic technique is most effective for mandibular teeth removal may positively impact the population’s life. There are no systematic reviews which approach this theme in a well-structured perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jastak JT, Yagiela JA (1983) Vasoconstrictors and local anesthesia: a review and rationale for use. J Am Dent Assoc 107:623–630. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1983.0307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Picozzi A, Neidle EA (1981) A survey of the use of selected drugs in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 103:597–599. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1981.0300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shinagawa A, Chin VKL, Rabbani SR, Campos AC (2009) A novel approach to intraoral mandibular nerve anesthesia: changing reference planes in the Gow-Gates block technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:2609–2616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clark S, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ (1999) Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 87:557–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70133-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boronat López A, Peñarrocha Diago M (2006) Failure of locoregional anesthesia in dental practice. Review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 11:510–513

    Google Scholar 

  6. Meechan JG (2010) Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible. Dent Clin N Am 54:621–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.06.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Madan GA, Madan SG, Madan AD (2002) Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block: exploring the alternatives. J Am Dent Assoc 133:843–846. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haas DA (2011) Alternative mandibular nerve block techniques: a review of the Gow-Gates and Akinosi-Vazirani closed-mouth mandibular nerve block techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 142:8S–12S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yu F, Xiao Y, Liu H et al (2017) Evaluation of three block anesthesia methods for pain management during mandibular third molar extraction: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 7:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zandi M, Seyedzadeh Sabounchi S (2008) Design and development of a device for facilitation of Gow-Gates mandibular block and evaluation of its efficacy. Oral Maxillofac Surg 12:149–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-008-0126-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jofré J, Münzenmayer C (1998) Design and preliminary evaluation of an extraoral Gow-Gates guiding device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 85:661–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90032-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sisk AL (1985) Evaluation of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for oral surgery. Anesth Prog 32:143–146

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Khoury J, Townsend G (2011) Neural blockade anaesthesia of the mandibular nerve and its terminal branches: rationale for different anaesthetic techniques including their advantages and disadvantages. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2011:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/307423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malamed SF (2013) Manual de anestesia local, 3rd edn, Rio de Janeiro

  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis: the prisma statement. Int J os Surg 8:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamada A, Jasstak JT (1981) Clinical evaluation of the Gow-Gates block in children. Anesth Prog 28:106–109

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dubey M, Ali I, Passi D et al (2017) Comparative evaluation of classical inferior dental nerve block and Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block for posterior dentoalveolar surgery: a prospective study and literature review. Ann Med Health Sci Res 7:92–96

    Google Scholar 

  19. Todorović L, Stajčić Z, Petrović V (1986) Mandibular versus inferior dental anaesthesia: clinical assessment of 3 different techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:733–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(86)80115-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Prabhu Nakkeeran K, Ravi P, Doss GT, Raja KK (2019) Is the Vazirani-Akinosi nerve block a better technique than the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block for beginners? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 77:489–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cruz EV, Quengua JB, Gutierrez IL, Abreu MA, Uy HG (1994) A comparative study: classical, Akinosi, and Gow-Gates technique of mandibular nerve block. J Philipp Dent Assoc 46:13–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Agren E, Danielsson K (1982) Conduction block analgesia in the mandible: a comparative investigation of the techniques of Fischer and Gow-Gates. Swed Dent J 5:81–89

    Google Scholar 

  23. Levy TP (1981) An assessment of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for third molar surgery. J Am Dent Assoc 103:37–4l. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1981.0467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berezowski BM, Lownie JF, Cleaton-Jones PE (1988) A comparison of two methods of inferior alveolar nerve block. J Dent 16:96–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(88)90060-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Martínez-González JM, Peña BB, Cáliz FF et al (2003) Estudio comparativo entre el bloqueo mandibular directo y la técnica de Akinosi. Med Oral 8:143–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ravi Kiran BS, Kashyap VM, Uppada UK, Tiwari P, Mishra A, Sachdeva A (2018) Comparison of efficacy of Halstead, Vazirani Akinosi and Gow Gates techniques for mandibular anesthesia. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 17:570–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sisk AL (1986) Evaluation of the Akinosi mandibular block technique in oral surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(86)90192-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Donkor P, Wong J, Punnia-Moorthy A (1990) An evaluation of the closed mouth mandibular block technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 19:216–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80395-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yücel E, Hutchison IL (1995) A comparative evaluation of the conventional and closed-mouth technique for inferior alveolar nerve block. Aust Dent J 40:15–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1995.tb05606.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Verma N, Lata J (2010) Comparison and clinical efficacy of mandibular nerve anaesthesia by direct conventional technique with Vazirani-Akinosi mandibular nerve block technique. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 26:79–82

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hung PC, Chang HH, Yang PJ, Kuo YS, Lan WH, Lin CP (2006) Comparison of the Gow-Gates mandibular block and inferior alveolar nerve block using a standardized protocol. J Formos Med Assoc 105:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60335-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Haghighat A, Jafari Z, Hasheminia D et al (2015) Comparison of success rate and onset time of two different anesthesia techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20:e459–e463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Madan N, Shashidhara Kamath K, Gopinath AL, Yashvanth A, Vaibhav N, Praveen G (2017) A randomized controlled study comparing efficacy of classical and Gow-Gates technique for providing anesthesia during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a split mouth design. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 16:186–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Maqsood A, Asim MA, Aslam F et al (2018) Comparison of efficacy of Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block and inferior alveolar nerve block for the extraction of mandibular molars. Ann Abbasi Shaheed Hosp Karachi Med Dent Coll 23:177–183

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mason R, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M (2009) A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 35:1173–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dagher FB, Yared GM, Machtou P (1997) An evaluation of 2% lidocaine with different concentrations of epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 23:178–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80271-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vreeland DL, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W, Weaver J (1989) An evaluation of volumes and concentrations of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 15:6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80091-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Waikakul A, Punwutikorn J (1991) A comparative study of the extra-intraoral landmark technique and the direct technique for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:804–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(91)90006-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Kabi D (2010) Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of Gow-Gates mandibular conduction anesthesia, Vazirani-Akinosi technique, buccal-plus-lingual infiltrations, and conventional inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 109:303–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Frommer J, Mele FA, Monroe CW (1972) The possible role of the mylohyoid nerve in mandibular posterior tooth sensation. J Am Dent Assoc 85:113–117. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1972.0285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson S, Johns P, Fuller PM (1984) The inferior alveolar and mylohyoid nerves: an anatomic study and relationship to local anesthesia of the anterior mandibular teeth. 108:350–352. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1984.0005

Download references

Acknowledgments

Editage provided the English editing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Oswaldo Cruz Hospital, University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Arthur José Barbosa de França, João Luiz Gomes Carneiro Monteiro & Nelson Studart Rocha

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Rayanna Thayse Florêncio Costa & Sandra Lúcia Dantas de Moraes

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Oswaldo Cruz Hospital, University of Pernambuco, Arnóbio Marques Street, 310 – Santo Amaro, Recife, PE, 50.100-130, Brazil

    Belmiro Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos

Authors
  1. Arthur José Barbosa de França
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rayanna Thayse Florêncio Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Luiz Gomes Carneiro Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelson Studart Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Belmiro Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandra Lúcia Dantas de Moraes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors (1) made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; (2) wrote the work or critically reviewed it to obtain important intellectual content; (3) approved the version to be published; and (4) agree to be responsible for all aspects of the work, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Belmiro Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Patient consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de França, A.J.B., Costa, R.T.F., Monteiro, J.L.G.C. et al. Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for the removal of posterior mandibular teeth with 2% lidocaine: a systematic review. Clin Oral Invest 24, 4143–4152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03580-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03580-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation