Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04563351

Effectiveness of the Intraligamentary Anesthesia and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block on Pain During Dental Treatment

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and complications of intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) with conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) during injection and dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth.

Materials and Methods: In this randomized, prospective clinical trial, 72 patients (39 males, 33 females) patients scheduled for dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth, were randomly allocated to ILA group (n=35) received ILA injection or IANB group (n=37) received the conventional IANB. Our primary outcome was to assess pain during the injection as well as pain and stress (discomfort) during dental treatment, using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10= the worst pain imaginable). Whereas; recording 24 hours postoperative complications were our Secondary outcomes.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–50 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University Medicine of Greifswald

Greifswald, 17487, Germany

About this study

MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective randomized comparative clinical trial was conducted in the integrated clinical course in the dental school of the University of Greifswald, Germany after the approval of the local ethics committee of the medical faculty in Greifswald (No. BB 174/18) in a period from December 2018 to June 2019. The sample size calculation using "G*power version 3.1" (Heinrich-Heine-University / Germany) was based on the following estimates: T-test for means (difference between two independent means), effect size 0.7, α error 0.05 and power (1-ß error) 0.9. It resulted in a samples size of 36 patients in each of the two groups (IANB & ILA).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The patients requiring regular dental in permanent mandibular posterior teeth under local anesthesia were recruited with an age range of 18 to 50 years. Patients were not included if they had a clinical or radiographic sign of acute abscess, pus or peri-radicular pathology. Also patients with a systemic disease requiring special considerations during their dental treatment or patients with contra-indications for any of the components of the anesthetic solution (allergy to articaine, epinephrine, and sulfite) were excluded.

Clinical Treatment and Outcome Computer-generated randomization technique was applied to allocate the participants to one of the both study groups (ILA vs. IANB). The intensity of pain as well as stress during the injection of the local anesthesia and during the dental procedure was assessed by using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS 0-10). The anesthesia was performed by the clinical instructors of the course being dental practitioners (GDPs) or by dental students in the 4th and 5th academic year in the integrated clinical course in the dental school of the University of Greifswald and recorded as dentist or student. The distributions of different experience level of clinical instructors, dental students in 4th and 5th year were considered. For the inferior alveolar nerve block, the patient was placed comfortably in a supine position on the dental chair. The start of the anesthetic procedure was done without using topical anesthesia. The IANB injection was administered with cannulas of 38 mm in length and a gauge of 0.4 mm (Sopira Carpule, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Hanau, Germany). The patients were anesthetized with Ultracain DS Forte 1:100.00 (Sanofi Aventis, Germany), the active ingredient being articaine in 1.7 ml ampules (1 ml equal to 40 mg articaine hydrochloride and 0.012 mg epinephrine hydrochloride, which is included as a vasoconstrictor). Once the bone was contacted, 1.5 ml of anesthetic solution was injected slowly. Subsequently the needle was detached for approximately 1 cm and an addition of 0.3-0.5 ml of local anesthetic solution was injected to anesthetize the lingual nerve.

For the intraligamentary anesthesia, three different syringe systems were used with randomized selection: Softjet syringe (Henke-Sass Wolf, Tuttlingen, Germany), Citojet syringe (Sopira, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Hanau, Germany), Ultrajet syringe (Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). The patients were also placed in a supine position and the dentist administered the ILA injection without using topical anesthesia with cannulas of 12 mm in length and a gauge of 0.30 mm (Sopira Carpule, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Hanau, Germany). Also, Ultracain DS Forte 1:100.000 (Sanofi Aventis, Germany) was used from 1.7 ml ampules. The needle was navigated through the gingival sulcus with the bevel towards the alveolar bone and away from the root surface, at an angle of 30°-40° to the long axis of the tooth and 2- 3 mm into the periodontal ligament space between root and alveolar bone. For each root, 0.2 ml of local anesthetic was injected over at least 20 seconds according to Endo et al. (2008) as well as Bender and Taubenheim (2014).

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • patients requiring regular dental in permanent mandibular posterior teeth under local anesthesia

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with a clinical or radiographic sign of acute abscess, pus or peri-radicular pathology
  • Patients with a systemic disease requiring special considerations during their dental treatment
  • Patients with contra-indications for any of the components of the anesthetic solution (allergy to articaine, epinephrine, and sulfite)

Treatment and study plan

local anaesthetic techniques

Other

The patients were anesthetized with two different local anaesthetic techniques.

Primary outcomes

  1. The intensity of pain during the injection

    Time frame: immediately after the injection of LA

    The intensity of pain during the injection of the LA to be assessed by the patient using Numeric Rating Scale. The Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS 0-10; 0 representing no pain at all and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable) is a valid instrument to measure pain.

  2. The intensity of pain during the dental treatment

    Time frame: immediately after the dental treatment

    The intensity of pain during the dental treatment to be assessed by the patient using Numeric Rating Scale. The Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS 0-10; 0 representing no pain at all and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable) is a valid instrument to measure pain.

  3. The intensity of stress (discomfort)

    Time frame: immediately after the dental treatment

    The intensity of stress during the dental treatment to be assessed by the patient using Numeric Rating Scale. The Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS 0-10; 0 representing no discomfortable at all and 10 representing the maximal discomfortable very imaginable) is a valid instrument to measure stress (discomfort)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Postoperative complications

    Time frame: 24 hours

    Recording any postoperative complications which could be occurred (Nerve injury or any other temporary irritations like the pain at the site of injection, signs of intravascular injection, lip-bit injury)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University Medicine Greifswald

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Randomized Clinical Trial on the Effectiveness of the Intraligamentary Anesthesia and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block on Pain During Dental Treatment

Important dates

Study start
2018
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2019
First posted
Sep 24, 2020
Registry last updated
Sep 24, 2020

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.