J G Meechan1, J I M Ledvinka. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Newcastle Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. j.g.meechan@ncl.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: This study compared the anaesthetic efficacy of infiltration and intraligamentary injections in the permanent mandibular central incisor. METHODOLOGY: Twelve healthy volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for one of their mandibular central incisors over four visits. 1 Labial infiltration of 1.0 mL. 2 Lingual infiltration of 1.0 mL. 3 Labial infiltration of 0.5 mL plus lingual infiltration of 0.5 mL. 4 Intraligamentary injection of (118 mL. Two percent lidocaine with 1: 80 000 adrenaline and 30 gauge needles were used throughout. Electrical pulp testing was performed before injection and every 2 min up to 30 min after the injection. Injection discomfort was recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were compared with ANOVA, Student's t-test and chi2 tests. RESULTS: Anaesthesia varied between techniques(F = 9.3, P < 0.001). The incidence of anaesthesia at any time was as follows: 50% success for labial infiltration; 50% success for lingual infiltration: 92% success for combined labial and lingual infiltration; 0% success for intraligamentary injections (chi2 = 20; P < 0.001). The mean (+/-SD) VAS score for intraligamentary injection discomfort was 28 +/- 12 mm, for buccal infiltrations 17 +/- 8 mm and for lingual infiltrations 16 +16 mm. Intraligamentary injections were more uncomfortable than buccal (t = 3.7: P < 0.01) and lingual infiltrations (t = 2.67: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The most reliable method of the techniques investigated for obtaining pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular permanent central incisors was a combination of labial and lingual infiltration. Intraligamentary injections were unreliable and were more uncomfortable than infiltrations in the mandibular central incisor region.
AIM: This study compared the anaesthetic efficacy of infiltration and intraligamentary injections in the permanent mandibular central incisor. METHODOLOGY: Twelve healthy volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for one of their mandibular central incisors over four visits. 1 Labial infiltration of 1.0 mL. 2 Lingual infiltration of 1.0 mL. 3 Labial infiltration of 0.5 mL plus lingual infiltration of 0.5 mL. 4 Intraligamentary injection of (118 mL. Two percent lidocaine with 1: 80 000 adrenaline and 30 gauge needles were used throughout. Electrical pulp testing was performed before injection and every 2 min up to 30 min after the injection. Injection discomfort was recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were compared with ANOVA, Student's t-test and chi2 tests. RESULTS: Anaesthesia varied between techniques(F = 9.3, P < 0.001). The incidence of anaesthesia at any time was as follows: 50% success for labial infiltration; 50% success for lingual infiltration: 92% success for combined labial and lingual infiltration; 0% success for intraligamentary injections (chi2 = 20; P < 0.001). The mean (+/-SD) VAS score for intraligamentary injection discomfort was 28 +/- 12 mm, for buccal infiltrations 17 +/- 8 mm and for lingual infiltrations 16 +16 mm. Intraligamentary injections were more uncomfortable than buccal (t = 3.7: P < 0.01) and lingual infiltrations (t = 2.67: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The most reliable method of the techniques investigated for obtaining pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular permanent central incisors was a combination of labial and lingual infiltration. Intraligamentary injections were unreliable and were more uncomfortable than infiltrations in the mandibular central incisor region.
Authors: Bozidar M B Brkovic; Miroslav Savic; Miroslav Andric; Milan Jurisic; Ljubomir Todorovic Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Geoffrey St George; Alyn Morgan; John Meechan; David R Moles; Ian Needleman; Yuan-Ling Ng; Aviva Petrie Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-10