Is it possible to extract lower third molars with infiltration anaesthesia techniques using articaine? A double-blind randomized clinical trial

Authors

  • Rui Figueiredo a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; b IDIBELL institute, Catalonia, Spain
  • Stavros Sofos a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Eduardo Soriano-Pons a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Octavi Camps-Font a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain;b IDIBELL institute, Catalonia, Spain
  • Gemma Sanmarti-García a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain;b IDIBELL institute, Catalonia, Spain
  • Cosme Gay-Escoda a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; b IDIBELL institute, Catalonia, Spain; c Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, EHFRE International University, Belize, Spain; d Oral Surgery, Implantology and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain
  • Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain;b IDIBELL institute, Catalonia, Spain

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2020.1760348

Keywords:

Dental anaesthesia, inferior alveolar nerve block, third molar, postoperative pain

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with additional buccal infiltration (standard technique) and of buccal and lingual anaesthetic infiltration (experimental technique) for lower third molar (L3M) extractions.

Study design

A randomised, double-blind clinical trial involving 129 L3M extractions was conducted. In the IANB group, an IANB was performed using the conventional approach, followed by a buccal injection in the extraction area. In the infiltration group (INF), an infiltration was performed in the buccal and lingual areas of the lower second molar. A 4% articaine solution was employed in all cases. The main outcome variable was anaesthetic efficacy. Other variables like intraoperative and postoperative pain, onset time and adverse events were also recorded. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were made.

Results

120 patients were randomised. The IANB group showed significantly higher anaesthetic efficacy than the INF group (64.4 vs. 45.8%) (odds ratio = 0.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.22–0.97; p = 0.042). No complications were observed.

Conclusions

IANB with additional buccal infiltration is more suitable than the experimental technique for achieving adequate analgesia in L3M extractions. Moreover, the standard method is safe and provides a shorter onset time and lower initial postoperative pain levels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2021-01-02