SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the effectiveness of intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block on mandibular molar teeth in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled clinical study

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The study aimed to compare the two local anesthetic techniques: inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) during the restorative treatment of mandibular first permanent molars in pediatric patients.

Materials and methods

In this randomized, controlled, cross-over, single-blind, split-mouth study, participants were divided into two groups: group 1, ILA in the first session and IANB in the second session, and group 2, IANB in the first session and ILA in the second session. The pain perception was analyzed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale (WBFPRS). Heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), and postoperative complications were recorded. The data were analyzed with the Brunner-Langer model, Spearman correlation analysis, Fisher’s exact t-test, chi-square, and McNemar tests.

Results

Seventy-eight patients aged between 6 and 12 years were included. The session effect was not statistically significant in ILA (p = 0.762 and p = 0.411) for pain scores while it was significant in IANB (p < 0.001 for each score). There was no significant difference in the VAS, WBFPRS, heart rate, and SpO2 between the anesthesia techniques (p = 0.454, p = 0.436, p = 0.406, p = 0.285, respectively). Postoperative complications increased in the IANB technique in the first session.

Conclusions

Intraligamentary anesthesia may be an alternative technique to IANB for the restorative treatment of mandibular first permanent molars in pediatric patients. In the first session, clinicians may choose the ILA instead of IANB.

Clinical relevance

In clinical procedures, administering anesthesia, which is effective, is less painful, and poses relatively low complication risk, has significant importance in sustaining children’s cooperation with dental treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Koch G, Poulsen S (2013) Pediatric dentistry: a clinical approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., UK, pp 17–60

    Google Scholar 

  2. Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S (2004) The wand versus traditional injection for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: perceived pain and time of onset. Pediatr Dent 26:481–484

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. San Martin-Lopez AL, Garrigos-Esparza LD, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra JF, de Pozos-Guillen AJ (2005) Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29:239–243. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.29.3.jgh607l870051882

  4. Malamed SF (2020) Handbook of local anesthesia e-book. Techniques of mandibular anesthesia, 7th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, p 257–285

  5. Chi D, Kanellis M, Himadi E, Asselin ME (2008) Lip biting in a pediatric dental patient after dental local anesthesia: a case report. J Pediatr Nurs 23:490–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2008.02.035

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Meechan JG (2002) Supplementary routes to local anesthesia. Int Endod J 35:885–896. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00592.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Malamed SF (2020) Handbook of local anesthesia e-book. Supplemental injection technique, 7th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, p 286–306.

  8. von Baeyer CL (2006) Children’s self-reports of pain intensity: scale selection, limitations and interpretation. Pain Res Manag 11:157–162. https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/197616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Witt N, Coynor S, Edwards C, Bradshaw H (2016) A guide to pain assessment and management in the neonate. Curr Emerg Hosp Med Rep 4:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40138-016-0089-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S (2002) Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 24:315–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tekin U, Ersin N, Oncag O, Bent B, Menderes M, Kocanali B (2012) Comparison of inferior alveolar nerve block and intraligamentary anesthesia on the discomfort of children. J Int Dent Med Res 5:143–148

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bataineh AB, Alwarafi MA (2016) Patient’s pain perception during mandibular molar extraction with articaine: a comparison study between infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block. Clin Oral Investig 20:2241–2250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1712-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC (2009) Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent 19:360–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00983.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kühnisch J, Daubländer M, Klingberg G et al (2017) Best clinical practice guidance for local analgesia in paediatric dentistry: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 18:313–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-017-0311-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2022) Behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Chicago, pp 321–393

  16. Gupta A, Wadhwa J, Aggarwal V, Mehta N, Abraham D, Aneja K, Singh A (2022) Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental intraligamentary injection in human mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 22:1–10. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.1.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kämmerer PW, Schiegnitz E, von Haussen T et al (2015) Clinical efficacy of a computerised device (STA™) and a pressure syringe (VarioJect INTRA™) for intraligamentary anesthesia. Eur J Dent Educ 19:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J (2008) Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J 205:E2-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Youssef BR, Söhnel A, Welk A et al (2021) RCT on the effectiveness of the intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block on pain during dental treatment. Clin Oral Investig 25:4825–4832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03787-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kämmerer PW, Adubae A, Buttchereit I, Thiem DGE, Daubländer M, Frerich B (2018) Prospective clinical study comparing intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of posterior mandibular teeth. Clin Oral Investig 22:1469–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2248-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM (2016) The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 47:217–224. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM (2015) The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 46:799–806. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Haghgoo R, Taleghani F (2015) Comparison of periodontal ligament injection and inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars pulpotomy: a randomized control trial. J Int Oral Health 7:11–14

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin S, Wigler R, Huber R, Kaufman AY (2017) Anaesthetic efficacy of intraligamentary injection techniques on mandibular molars diagnosed with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a retrospective study. Aust Endod J 43:34–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, Kohli S, Sharma V, Bhasin SS (2018) Does the volume of supplemental intraligamentary injections affect the anaesthetic success rate after a failed primary inferior alveolar nerve block? A randomized-double blind clinical trial. Int Endod J 51(1):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thoppe-Dhamodhara YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P (2015) Cartridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: pain related behaviour over two sequential visits - a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Dent 7:e513-518. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52542

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hembrecht EJ, Nieuwenhuizen J, Aartman IH, Krikken J, Veerkamp JS (2013) Pain-related behaviour in children: a randomised study during two sequential dental visits. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 14:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-012-0003-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ram D, Peretz B (2001) Reactions of children to maxillary infiltration and mandibular block injections. Pediatr Dent 23:343–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cianetti S, Lombardo G, Lupatelli E et al (2017) Dental fear/anxiety among children and adolescents A systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 18:121–130. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Alsadat FA, El-Housseiny AA, Alamoudi NM, Elderwi DA, Ainosa AM, Dardeer FM (2018) Dental fear in primary school children and its relation to dental caries. Niger J Clin Pract 21:1454–1460. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_160_18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sirintawat N, Sawang K, Chaiyasamut T, Wongsirichat N (2017) Pain measurement in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 17:253–263. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2017.17.4.253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Campanella V, Libonati A, Nardi R et al (2018) Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study. Clin Oral Investig 22:3205–3213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2413-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dumbrigue HB, Lim MV, Rudman RA, Serraon A (1997) A comparative study of anesthetic techniques for mandibular dental extraction. Am J Dent 10:275–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Timur Köse and Research Assistant Semiha Özgül for the statistical analysis.

Funding

This study was supported by İzmir Katip Çelebi University Scientific Research Projects Coordination (Grant number: 2019-TDU-DİŞF-0013).

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey

    Ece Yılmaz & Funda Çağırır Dindaroğlu

  2. Istanbul, Turkey

    Ece Yılmaz

Authors
  1. Ece Yılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Funda Çağırır Dindaroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EY and FCD designed the study. EY performed clinical procedures. FCD and EY collected and analyzed the data. EY and FCD wrote the main manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the final draft of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Funda Çağırır Dindaroğlu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at İzmir Katip Celebi University (#15/2020) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was published on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05115773). All participants and their legal guardians were informed about the study and signed informed consent forms.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 22 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yılmaz, E., Çağırır Dindaroğlu, F. Comparison of the effectiveness of intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block on mandibular molar teeth in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Invest 27, 3071–3082 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04911-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04911-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation