OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to compare the computed and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block techniques in symmetrically positioned inferior third molars. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Both computed and conventional anesthetic techniques were performed in 29 healthy patients (58 surgeries) aged between 18 and 40 years. The anesthetic of choice was 2% lidocaine with 1: 200,000 epinephrine. The Visual Analogue Scale assessed the pain variable after anesthetic infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Likert Scale. Heart and respiratory rates, mean time to perform technique, and the need for additional anesthesia were also evaluated. RESULTS:Pain variable means were higher for the conventional technique as compared with computed, 3.45 ± 2.73 and 2.86 ± 1.96, respectively, but no statistically significant differences were found (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction showed no statistically significant differences. The average computed technique runtime and the conventional were 3.85 and 1.61 minutes, respectively, showing statistically significant differences (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The computed anesthetic technique showed lower mean pain perception, but did not show statistically significant differences when contrasted to the conventional technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to compare the computed and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block techniques in symmetrically positioned inferior third molars. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Both computed and conventional anesthetic techniques were performed in 29 healthy patients (58 surgeries) aged between 18 and 40 years. The anesthetic of choice was 2% lidocaine with 1: 200,000 epinephrine. The Visual Analogue Scale assessed the pain variable after anesthetic infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Likert Scale. Heart and respiratory rates, mean time to perform technique, and the need for additional anesthesia were also evaluated. RESULTS:Pain variable means were higher for the conventional technique as compared with computed, 3.45 ± 2.73 and 2.86 ± 1.96, respectively, but no statistically significant differences were found (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction showed no statistically significant differences. The average computed technique runtime and the conventional were 3.85 and 1.61 minutes, respectively, showing statistically significant differences (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The computed anesthetic technique showed lower mean pain perception, but did not show statistically significant differences when contrasted to the conventional technique.