Comparative study between manual injection intraosseous anesthesia and conventional oral anesthesia
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...
Saved in:
Published in | Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal Vol. 17; no. 2; pp. e233 - e235 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Spain
Medicina Oral S.L
01.03.2012
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | 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. |
---|---|
AbstractList | OBJECTIVETo compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODA 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. RESULTSA 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). CONCLUSIONSThe 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. 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. Objective: To compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. Materials and methods: 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 res-pective 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Key words: Anesthesia, intraosseous, oral anesthesia, Stabident®, infiltrative, mandibular block. |
Author | Ata-Ali, J Oltra-Moscardó, M-J Peñarrocha-Oltra, D Peñarrocha-Diago, M-A Peñarrocha, M |
AuthorAffiliation | 2 DDS. Master in Oral Surgery and Medicine. Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School 5 Chairman of Oral Surgery. Director of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School. Valencia (Spain) 1 DDS. Resident of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School 3 MD. DDS, PhD. Valencia University Medical and Dental School 4 Associate Professor of Oral Surgery. Valencia University Medical and Dental School |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 4 Associate Professor of Oral Surgery. Valencia University Medical and Dental School – name: 1 DDS. Resident of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School – name: 5 Chairman of Oral Surgery. Director of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School. Valencia (Spain) – name: 2 DDS. Master in Oral Surgery and Medicine. Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School – name: 3 MD. DDS, PhD. Valencia University Medical and Dental School |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: D surname: Peñarrocha-Oltra fullname: Peñarrocha-Oltra, D organization: Cirugía Bucal, Clínicas Odontológicas, Gascó Oliag 1, 46021- Valencia, Spain – sequence: 2 givenname: J surname: Ata-Ali fullname: Ata-Ali, J – sequence: 3 givenname: M-J surname: Oltra-Moscardó fullname: Oltra-Moscardó, M-J – sequence: 4 givenname: M-A surname: Peñarrocha-Diago fullname: Peñarrocha-Diago, M-A – sequence: 5 givenname: M surname: Peñarrocha fullname: Peñarrocha, M |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22143700$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNpVkUlPwzAQhS1URBc4ckW5cUrxktrOBQlVbFIlLnC2HHtCUyV2iZOi_ntcWqpy8rP8zfjNvDEaOO8AoWuCpxkj4q4B61tdT4nIZvwMjQjPZcrzjA9O9BCNQ1hhzAQR_AINKSUZExiPkJn7Zq1b3VUbSELX221SQPcN4JJGu17XSeVWYLrKu6i6VvsQwPch0Q5Ct4RQ6ShtYrzbgNthsWRn6AS4ROelrgNcHc4J-nh6fJ-_pIu359f5wyI1TPIuzbHEgpbxUmbWFMRmBmNSFkAZB1nkls2IwNRKK2QhLSFSFoILQrgGOot1E3S_77vui7gWAzu_tVq3VaPbrfK6Uv9fXLVUn36jWJZJRnlscHto0PqvPtpXTRUM1HWcJc6scsryGWOERjLdk6aNC2mhPP5CsNrlog65qN9cIn9zau1I_wXBfgBmDJAz |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_joen_2024_01_003 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2015_007724 crossref_primary_10_56083_RCV3N11_083 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_021_04145_7 crossref_primary_10_1111_ipd_12494 crossref_primary_10_1590_pboci_2023_060 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright: © 2012 Medicina Oral S.L. 2012 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright: © 2012 Medicina Oral S.L. 2012 |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM AAYXX CITATION 7X8 5PM |
DOI | 10.4317/medoral.17456 |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine Dentistry |
EISSN | 1698-6946 |
EndPage | e235 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_4317_medoral_17456 22143700 |
Genre | Clinical Trial Journal Article Comparative Study |
GroupedDBID | 2WC 53G 5GY ADBBV ADRAZ AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS APOWU AZFZN CGR CUY CVF DIK E3Z EBS ECM EIF EJD F5P FRP GX1 HYE KQ8 M48 M~E NPM OK1 PGMZT RPM RSK SCD W2D XSB Z7D 29M AAYXX ABXHO BAWUL CITATION 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-908072fc38f4dcb1d4c001fbe236e8b9d351702d8d78b8d1188b767116ae25fc3 |
IEDL.DBID | RPM |
ISSN | 1698-6946 1698-4447 |
IngestDate | Tue Sep 17 21:27:11 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 16 09:05:30 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 23 00:59:34 EDT 2024 Sat Sep 28 08:40:07 EDT 2024 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 2 |
Language | English |
License | This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c386t-908072fc38f4dcb1d4c001fbe236e8b9d351702d8d78b8d1188b767116ae25fc3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448326/ |
PMID | 22143700 |
PQID | 923953312 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3448326 proquest_miscellaneous_923953312 crossref_primary_10_4317_medoral_17456 pubmed_primary_22143700 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2012-03-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2012-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2012 text: 2012-03-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | Spain |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Spain |
PublicationTitle | Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal |
PublicationYear | 2012 |
Publisher | Medicina Oral S.L |
Publisher_xml | – name: Medicina Oral S.L |
SSID | ssj0037176 |
Score | 1.9923726 |
Snippet | To compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques.
A simple-blind, prospective clinical study was carried out. Each... OBJECTIVETo compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODA simple-blind, prospective clinical... Objective: To compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. Materials and methods: A simple-blind, prospective... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest crossref pubmed |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | e233 |
SubjectTerms | 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 |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access dbid: M48 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV1LT8MwDLZgSMAFwXiVl3JA3DrapE3aE0KDaUIaJybtViVNKoZYB3tI8O9x2u7FkLilatIkjlt_lt3PANdcKRUZG1ZXxnMR_8euUiF1Y6m5iCWL08z-nNx55u1u8NQLewtKoUqA4z9dO1tPqjt6b3x9ft_hC4_4tWHN3-3AFuXATgiuQ74JWzRggVX2TjAPKDD0WnhJsbk-ZNUkreHM3-mSS_antQ97FXAk9-VJH8CGyeuw82CTfWy9tjpsd6ow-SGkzQWnNykIZEmVj0UG0nKQkn7-VuRg5djC2XBZZjgdE4kfPkSE477EpibLKenE7mSpwxF0W48vzbZbVVNwUxbxiRsjNhQ0w4ss0KnydZCiicqUoYybSMWahb7wqI60iFSk0fGIlODC97k0NMRxx1DLh7k5BSL8VAkVxCoViA4CKhGlyIzrTEmeMi4cuJkJNPkoSTMSdDas5JNK8kkheQfITNwJqrWNVeA-cL8J4k6b-OpTB05K6c-fRCliPOF5DoiVc5l3sIzZq3fy_mvBnM1QGRGvnv0_7TnsIjSiZbbZBdQmo6m5RPgxUVeFYv0AKdvhMQ priority: 102 providerName: Scholars Portal |
Title | Comparative study between manual injection intraosseous anesthesia and conventional oral anesthesia |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22143700 https://search.proquest.com/docview/923953312 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC3448326 |
Volume | 17 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LSwMxEB5sD-JFfFsfJQfxtm032U2yRymKCBUPCr0tmSSLFbsWrf_fyT5q1Zu3LJvnZMh8Q76ZAFxIRNQ-XKujH0WE_7MIMeVRZpxUmRGZLUJw8uRe3j4ld9N0ugFpGwtTkfYtzgbl63xQzp4rbuViboctT2z4MBkL6pNgx7ADHSVE66LXx68g_6QKKZKZprETVSfWDHZyOA-vdxCkJRSehreLOCe0oEJw27pN-gM0f_Ml1wzQzQ5sN8iRXdUz3IUNX-7B5qS5G98HO_5O5M2qrLGsIWGxuQmJR9msfKmIVyWVaASaiie_nxk67QgGfswMFR1b56GzsJC1CgfwdHP9OL6NmicUIiu0XEYZAULFC_ooEmcxdoklu1Sg50J6jZkTaaxG3GmnNGpH3oZGJVUcS-N5Su0OoVu-lf4YmIotKkwytIogQcINQRNTSFegkVZI1YPLVoj5os6UkZOHEQSfN4LPK8H3gLUizkmXwwUFrYPWmxPYDGzXmPfgqJb4qqd2q3qgfuzFqkJIk_3zD2lPlS670ZaTf7c8hS2CSbxmnp1Bd_n-6c8JiiyxD51JovuVAn4B2SvjpA |
link.rule.ids | 230,315,733,786,790,891,2236,24346,27955,27956,53825,53827 |
linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3JTsMwEB2xSMCFfSmrD4hbWuIkdnJEFahAizgA4hZ5bEcUaEDQXvh6xlmghRPcEnmJnWd73sjPY4BDgYixddvqaI894v-JhxhxL1FGyEQFic7c4eTelejchhf30f0URPVZmEK0r7HfzJ8Hzbz_UGgrXwe6VevEWte9dkB1Eu1oTcMszVce1U56uQAH5KEUh4pEEtPXQ1mG1nSWsjVw93cQqSUeHrnbizgnviDd8bZxq_SLav5UTI6ZoLMluKsbXypPnpqjITb1x4-4jn_u3TIsVqSUnZTJKzBl81WY61Xb7mug298xwlkRkJZV-i42UC6mKevnj4WmK6cnajr10b6M3pmihZQY5ntf0aNh4xJ35v7QWIZ1uD07vWl3vOp2Bk8HsRh6CXFNyTN6yUKj0TehJpOXoeWBsDEmJoh8ecxNbGSMsSFHJkYppO8LZXlE5TZgJn_J7RYw6WuUGCaoJbGNkCtiPSoTJkMldCBkA45qdNLXMghHSs6LQzStEE0LRBvAauxSmiZu74P6Qf1Nicc6Ia3PG7BZQvlVUz0GGiAnQP7K4CJwT6YQdEUk7gqq7X-XPID5zk2vm3bPry53YIHYGC8FbrswM3wb2T1iPEPcL8b3J4l7BM0 |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3NT9swFH8anYS4DDY-VhjDh2m3NMRJ7OSIOqpu0IrDkCoukZ_tiMIaqtFe-Ot5zkdJ4cYtUWzLLz9__J7883sAPwQiJtYdq6M99Yj_px5izL1UGSFTFaY6d5eTR2MxvI7-TOJJK9VXKdrXOO0V_2a9YnpbaivnM-03OjH_atQPqU2iHf7c5P4GfKQ5y2XjqFeLcEheSnmxSKQJ9SCSVXhNt1v6M5fDg4gtcfHYZTDinDiDdFfc2jvTG7r5WjXZ2oYG23DTGFCpT-57ywX29NOr2I7vsnAHPtXklJ1VRT7DB1t8gc1Rffy-C7r_EiuclYFpWa3zYjPlYpuyaXFXarsKeqLuk532YfnIFC2oxDQfp4oeDWtL3Zn7S60Ce3A9OP_bH3p1lgZPh4lYeClxTslzeskjozEwkaatL0fLQ2ETTE0YB_KUm8TIBBNDDk2CUsggEMrymOrtQ6d4KOxXYDLQKDFKUUtiHRFXxH5ULkyOSuhQyC78bBDK5lUwjoycGIdqVqOalah2gTX4ZTRd3BkI2UH2ZsRnnaA24F04qOBctdSMgy7INaBXBVwk7vUvBF8ZkbuG6_DdNU9g8-rXILv8Pb44gi0iZbzSuX2DzuL_0h4T8Vng93KIPwObvAdN |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative+study+between+manual+injection+intraosseous+anesthesia+and+conventional+oral+anesthesia&rft.jtitle=Medicina+oral%2C+patolog%C3%ADa+oral+y+cirug%C3%ADa+bucal&rft.au=Pe%C3%B1arrocha-Oltra%2C+D&rft.au=Ata-Ali%2C+J&rft.au=Oltra-Moscard%C3%B3%2C+M-J&rft.au=Pe%C3%B1arrocha-Diago%2C+M-A&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.eissn=1698-6946&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e233&rft.epage=e235&rft_id=info:doi/10.4317%2Fmedoral.17456&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1698-6946&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1698-6946&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1698-6946&client=summon |