• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.59-67
• /
• 2006

There exist patients complaining speech problem due to dysesthesia or anesthesia following dental surgical procedure accompanied by local anesthesia in clinical setting. However, it is not clear whether sensory problems in orofacial region may have an influence on motor speech abilities. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether transitory sensory impairment of mandibular nerve by local anesthesia may influence on the motor speech abilities and thus to evaluate possibility of distorted motor speech abilities due to dysesthesia of mandibular nerve. The subjects in this study consisted of 7 men and 3 women, whose right inferior alveolar nerve, lingual nerve and long buccal nerve was anesthetized by 1.8 mL lidocaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine. All the subjects were instructed to self estimate degree of anesthesia on the affected region and speech discomfort with VAS before anesthesia, 30 seconds, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 minutes after anesthesia. In order to evaluate speech problems objectively, the words and sentences suggested to be read for testing speech speed, diadochokinetic rate, intonation, tremor and articulation were recorded according to the time and evaluated using a Computerized Speech $Lab^{(R)}$. Articulation was evaluated by a speech language clinician. The results of this study indicated that subjective discomfort of speech and depth of anesthesia was increased with time until 60 minutes after anesthesia and then decreased. Degree of subjective speech discomfort was correlated with depth of anesthesia self estimated by each subject. On the while, there was no significant difference in objective assessment item including speech speed, diadochokinetic rate, intonation and tremor. There was no change in articulation related with anesthesia. Based on the results of this study, it is not thought that sensory impairment of unilateral mandibular nerve deteriorates motor speech abilities in spite of individual's complaint of speech discomfort.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.5
• /
• pp.339-348
• /
• 2022

Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.283-309
• /
• 2021

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was "What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?" We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34). These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L'Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.