Comparative study between manual injection intraosseous anesthesia and conventional oral anesthesia

• Published in: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal Vol. 17; no. 2; pp. e233 - e235
• Main Authors: Peñarrocha-Oltra, D, Ata-Ali, J, Oltra-Moscardó, M-J, Peñarrocha-Diago, M-A, Peñarrocha, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Spain Medicina Oral S.L 01.03.2012
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Anesthesia, Dental - methods; Anesthesia, Local - methods; Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage; Child; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Injections - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Oral Surgery; Prospective Studies; Single-Blind Method; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1698-6946; 1698-4447; 1698-6946
• DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17456

To compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. A simple-blind, prospective clinical study was carried out. Each patient underwent two anesthetic techniques: conventional (local infiltration and locoregional anesthetic block) and intraosseous, for respective dental operations. In order to allow comparison of IA versus conventional anesthesia, the two operations were similar and affected the same two teeth in opposite quadrants. A total of 200 oral anesthetic procedures were carried out in 100 patients. The mean patient age was 28.6±9.92 years. Fifty-five vestibular infiltrations and 45 mandibular blocks were performed. All patients were also subjected to IA. The type of intervention (conservative or endodontic) exerted no significant influence (p=0.58 and p=0.62, respectively). The latency period was 8.52±2.44 minutes for the conventional techniques and 0.89±0.73 minutes for IA - the difference being statistically significant (p<0.05). Regarding patient anesthesia sensation, the infiltrative techniques lasted a maximum of one hour, the inferior alveolar nerve blocks lasted between 1-3 hours, and IA lasted only 2.5 minutes - the differences being statistically significant (p≤0.0000, Φ=0.29). Anesthetic success was recorded in 89% of the conventional procedures and in 78% of the IA. Most patients preferred IA (61%)(p=0.0032). The two anesthetic procedures have been compared for latency, duration of anesthetic effect, anesthetic success rate and patient preference. Intraosseous anesthesia has been shown to be a technique to be taken into account when planning conservative and endodontic treatments.