Anaesthetic efficacy of intraligamentary injection compared to incisive nerve block using 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE BMC Oral Health Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-05147-z
Suzan Salem, Islam Saad, Ramy Elmoazen, Ghada Amin Khalifa
{"title":"Anaesthetic efficacy of intraligamentary injection compared to incisive nerve block using 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Suzan Salem, Islam Saad, Ramy Elmoazen, Ghada Amin Khalifa","doi":"10.1186/s12903-024-05147-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In dentistry, local anesthetic is frequently used to manage pain throughout several phases of dental treatments, including tooth extraction. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two techniques for controlling pain during mandibular exodontia (tooth extraction), specifically focusing on the pain experienced during injection and extraction of mandibular anterior and premolars teeth. The two techniques being compared are the intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) and the incisive nerve block technique (INB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this study, 100 mandibular anterior and premolars and teeth that were indicated for extraction were included. The effectiveness of the two local anaesthesia techniques, intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) and incisive nerve block (INB), were compared using Modified Dental Anxiety Scale for Dental Extraction Procedure (MDAS-DEP) and visual analogue scale (VAS) during the injection and extraction stages of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 participants (42 females, 58 males) with a mean age of 50.97 ± 11.59 years took part in the study. The mean VAS score in the INB group was 6.14 after injection and 3.86 after extraction, while in the ILI group, it was 5.46 and 2.90, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups both after injection (p = 0.001) and extraction (p < 0.001), as well as within each group (Control: p < 0.001; Study: p < 0.001). For MDAS-DEP, the INB group had mean scores of 15.86 and 11.26 after injection and extraction, respectively, while the ILI group had scores of 15.68 and 10.94, showing a significant difference within each group after both injection (p < 0.001) and extraction (p = 0.001). However, no significant difference was found when comparing MDAS-DEP scores between the two groups from injection to extraction (p = 0.802).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) appears less painful during injection and provides profound pain relief during extraction. The results suggest that ILI can be used as a sole anaesthetic technique during extraction of lower anterior and premolar teeth.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial was retrospectively registered on 27/01/2023 with the identifier ISRCTN83272316 in Isrctn.com.</p>","PeriodicalId":9072,"journal":{"name":"BMC Oral Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11740491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05147-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In dentistry, local anesthetic is frequently used to manage pain throughout several phases of dental treatments, including tooth extraction. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two techniques for controlling pain during mandibular exodontia (tooth extraction), specifically focusing on the pain experienced during injection and extraction of mandibular anterior and premolars teeth. The two techniques being compared are the intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) and the incisive nerve block technique (INB).

Materials and methods: In this study, 100 mandibular anterior and premolars and teeth that were indicated for extraction were included. The effectiveness of the two local anaesthesia techniques, intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) and incisive nerve block (INB), were compared using Modified Dental Anxiety Scale for Dental Extraction Procedure (MDAS-DEP) and visual analogue scale (VAS) during the injection and extraction stages of the procedure.

Results: A total of 100 participants (42 females, 58 males) with a mean age of 50.97 ± 11.59 years took part in the study. The mean VAS score in the INB group was 6.14 after injection and 3.86 after extraction, while in the ILI group, it was 5.46 and 2.90, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups both after injection (p = 0.001) and extraction (p < 0.001), as well as within each group (Control: p < 0.001; Study: p < 0.001). For MDAS-DEP, the INB group had mean scores of 15.86 and 11.26 after injection and extraction, respectively, while the ILI group had scores of 15.68 and 10.94, showing a significant difference within each group after both injection (p < 0.001) and extraction (p = 0.001). However, no significant difference was found when comparing MDAS-DEP scores between the two groups from injection to extraction (p = 0.802).

Conclusion: The intraligamentary injection technique (ILI) appears less painful during injection and provides profound pain relief during extraction. The results suggest that ILI can be used as a sole anaesthetic technique during extraction of lower anterior and premolar teeth.

Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered on 27/01/2023 with the identifier ISRCTN83272316 in Isrctn.com.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
韧带内注射与3%盐酸甲哌卡因切开神经阻滞的麻醉效果:一项随机临床试验。
背景:在牙科中,局部麻醉经常用于治疗包括拔牙在内的牙科治疗的各个阶段的疼痛。本研究旨在比较两种技术在控制下颌外牙(拔牙)过程中疼痛的有效性,特别关注下颌前磨牙和前磨牙注射和拔牙过程中的疼痛。比较的两种技术是韧带内注射技术(ILI)和神经阻滞技术(INB)。材料和方法:本研究包括100颗下颌前磨牙和前磨牙,以及需要拔除的牙齿。采用改良拔牙过程焦虑量表(MDAS-DEP)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)比较两种局部麻醉技术(韧带内注射技术(ILI)和切口神经阻滞(INB))在拔牙过程注射和拔牙阶段的有效性。结果:共纳入100例受试者,其中女性42例,男性58例,平均年龄50.97±11.59岁。INB组注射后VAS评分平均为6.14分,拔牙后VAS评分平均为3.86分,ILI组分别为5.46分和2.90分。两组患者在注射后(p = 0.001)和拔牙后(p = 0.001)的疼痛差异均有统计学意义。结论:韧带内注射技术(ILI)在注射时疼痛减轻,拔牙时疼痛明显减轻。结果表明,ILI可作为下前磨牙和前磨牙拔除时的唯一麻醉技术。试验注册:该试验于2023年1月27日回顾性注册,ISRCTN83272316在Isrctn.com上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Oral Health
BMC Oral Health DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
481
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Oral Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of biomechanical characteristics of the Schneiderian membrane with different transcrestal sinus floor elevation techniques using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Correction: D-mannose alleviates chronic periodontitis in rats by regulating the functions of neutrophils. Dental and oral health assessments in the German National Cohort (NAKO). Evaluation of the efficiency of smear layer removal during endodontic treatment using scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study. Impacted lower third molar classification and difficulty index assessment: comparisons among dental students, general practitioners and deep learning model assistance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1