Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the efficacy of three intraoral infraorbital nerve block (IONB) techniques—conventional (CG), alar base(AG), and molar approaches(MG)—in achieving maxillary anaesthesia for tooth extractions.</p> Materials and Methods <p>This prospective randomized controlled trial involved 42 patients aged 18–60 years undergoing maxillary anterior and premolar tooth extractions. sample size of 11 participants in each group was calculated to achieve a study power of 98% at a 95% confidence level. Considering follow up period of 1 week, 10–20% participant dropout was anticipated and thus the final sample size was 14 participants per group. Patients were randomized into three groups (<i>n</i> = 13 each): Group A (conventional), Group B (alar base), and Group C (molar). All IONBs were administered by a single experienced operator to ensure procedural standardization. Outcomes included pain during injection and procedure (Wong-Baker FACES scale), onset of anaesthesia, extent of anaesthetized area (Pathak–Ponvel GRID Mapping Chart), ease of administration (ease-VAS scale), and complications. Data were analyzed via one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Results <p>Onset of anaesthesia was significantly faster in AG (0.99 ± 0.51&#xa0;min; 95% CI: 0.68–1.30&#xa0;min) and in MG (0.90 ± 0.50&#xa0;min; 95% CI: 0.60–1.20&#xa0;min) as compared to CG (2.04 ± 1.14&#xa0;min; 95% CI: 1.35–2.73&#xa0;min). Pain scores showed no significant intergroup differences. Alar base provided the broadest anaesthetic coverage, particularly in the incisor region. Conventional technique demonstrated the highest ease of administration. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed.</p> Conclusion <p>All three techniques are effective. Alar base and molar approaches provide faster onset and wider coverage, while the conventional technique remains the easiest and most reliable for routine use. Clinicians should select the technique based on anatomical considerations, required extent of anaesthesia, and operator familiarity.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Efficacy of Different Techniques of the Infraorbital Nerve Block for Maxillary Anaesthesia: A Comparative Prospective Randomised Control Trial”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月19日

查看全文
  • Sakshi Pathak,
  • Keerthana Ponvel,
  • Manikandhan Ramanathan

摘要

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of three intraoral infraorbital nerve block (IONB) techniques—conventional (CG), alar base(AG), and molar approaches(MG)—in achieving maxillary anaesthesia for tooth extractions.

Materials and Methods

This prospective randomized controlled trial involved 42 patients aged 18–60 years undergoing maxillary anterior and premolar tooth extractions. sample size of 11 participants in each group was calculated to achieve a study power of 98% at a 95% confidence level. Considering follow up period of 1 week, 10–20% participant dropout was anticipated and thus the final sample size was 14 participants per group. Patients were randomized into three groups (n = 13 each): Group A (conventional), Group B (alar base), and Group C (molar). All IONBs were administered by a single experienced operator to ensure procedural standardization. Outcomes included pain during injection and procedure (Wong-Baker FACES scale), onset of anaesthesia, extent of anaesthetized area (Pathak–Ponvel GRID Mapping Chart), ease of administration (ease-VAS scale), and complications. Data were analyzed via one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05).

Results

Onset of anaesthesia was significantly faster in AG (0.99 ± 0.51 min; 95% CI: 0.68–1.30 min) and in MG (0.90 ± 0.50 min; 95% CI: 0.60–1.20 min) as compared to CG (2.04 ± 1.14 min; 95% CI: 1.35–2.73 min). Pain scores showed no significant intergroup differences. Alar base provided the broadest anaesthetic coverage, particularly in the incisor region. Conventional technique demonstrated the highest ease of administration. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed.

Conclusion

All three techniques are effective. Alar base and molar approaches provide faster onset and wider coverage, while the conventional technique remains the easiest and most reliable for routine use. Clinicians should select the technique based on anatomical considerations, required extent of anaesthesia, and operator familiarity.