Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesiaa preliminary study

  1. Rut Beneito Brotons 1
  2. David Peñarrocha Oltra 2
  3. Francisco Javier Ata-Ali Mahmud 3
  4. María Peñarrocha Diago 4
  1. 1 DDS, Master in Endodontics. Private practice in Valencia
  2. 2 DDS, Resident of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School
  3. 3 DDS, Primary Public Health Service Dentist. Valencian Health Service. Master in Oral Surgery and Medicine. Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology. Valencia University Medical and Dental School
  4. 4 Associate Professor of Oral Surgery. Valencia University Medical and Dental School. Valencia, Spain
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa

ISSN: 1698-6946

Año de publicación: 2012

Volumen: 17

Número: 3

Páginas: 21

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4317/MEDORAL.17543 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa

Resumen

Objective: To compare a computerized intraosseous anesthesia system with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques, and analyze the latency and duration of the anesthetic effect and patient preference. Design: A simple-blind prospective study was made between March 2007 and May 2008. Each patient was subjected to two anesthetic techniques: conventional and intraosseous using the Quicksleeper® system (DHT, Cholet, France). A split-mouth design was adopted in which each patient underwent treatment of a tooth with one of the techniques, and treatment of the homologous contralateral tooth with the other technique. The treatments consisted of restorations, endodontic procedures and simple extractions. Results: The study series comprised 12 females and 18 males with a mean age of 36.8 years. The 30 subjects underwent a total of 60 anesthetic procedures. Intraosseous and conventional oral anesthesia caused discomfort during administration in 46.3% and 32.1% of the patients, respectively. The latency was 7.1±2.23 minutes for the conventional technique and 0.48±0.32 for intraosseous anesthesia – the difference being statistically significant. The depth of the anesthetic effect was sufficient to allow the patients to tolerate the dental treatments. The duration of the anesthetic effect in soft tissues was 199.3 minutes with the conventional technique versus only 1.6 minutes with intraosseous anesthesia – the difference between the two techniques being statistically significant. Most of the patients (69.7%) preferred intraosseous anesthesia. Conclusions: The described intraosseous anesthetic system is effective, with a much shorter latency than the conventional technique, sufficient duration of anesthesia to perform the required dental treatments, and with a much lesser soft tissue anesthetic effect. Most of the patients preferred intraosseous anesthesia.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Sixou, JL, Marie-Cousin, A, Huet, A, Hingant, B, Robert, JC. (2009). Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent. 19. 360
  • Remmers, T, Glickman, G, Spears, R, He, J. (2008). The efficacy of IntraFlow intraosseous injection as a primary anesthesia technique. J Endod. 34. 280
  • Gallatin, J, Reader, A, Nusstein, J, Beck, M, Weaver, J. (2003). A comparison of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques in mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 134. 1476
  • Nusstein, J, Wood, M, Reader, A, Beck, M, Weaver, J. (2005). Comparison of the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with the intraosseous injection and infiltration injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Gen Dent. 53. 50
  • Prohić, S, Sulejmanagić, H, Secić, S. (2005). The efficacy of supplemental intraosseous anesthesia after insufficient mandibular block. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 5. 57-60
  • Nusstein, J, Kennedy, S, Reader, A, Beck, M, Weaver, J. (2003). Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 29. 724
  • Sixou, JL, Barbosa-Rogier, ME. (2008). Efficacy of intraosseous injections of anesthetic in children and adolescents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 106. 173
  • Coggins, R, Reader, A, Nist, R, Beck, M, Meyers, WJ. (1996). Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection in maxillary and mandibular teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 81. 634
  • Dunbar, D, Reader, A, Nist, R, Beck, M, Meyers, WJ. (1996). Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection after an inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod. 22. 481
  • Quarnstrom, F. (2001). Comparison of time to anesthesia for block, infiltration, and intraosseous local anesthetic injections: a clinical study. Dent Today. 20. 114
  • Leonard, MS. (1995). The efficacy of an intraosseous injection system of delivering local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc. 126. 81
  • Sierra-Rebolledo, A, Delgado-Molina, E, Berini-Aytés, L, Gay-Escoda, C. (2007). Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 12. 139
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet