ABSTRACT
Anesthesia of the soft and hard tissues of the maxilla may require up to 5 injections. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) and supraperiosteal injection techniques during subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP). Thirty individuals with periodontitis were scheduled for SRP on the buccal aspect of teeth in the anterior maxilla. Before SRP, on a randomly chosen side of the maxilla, the supraperiosteal injection was performed in 1 session, while the AMSA injection was conducted in the contralateral side of the same patient in another session. Immediately after each SRP session, patients rated their pain perception during the procedure with a visual analog scale. No statistically significant differences in mean pain ratings during SRP were found after both anesthetic techniques (P > .05). This preliminary study demonstrated that the AMSA and supraperiosteal injection techniques provided similar anesthetic comfort during SRP. The AMSA injection could be an alternative to anesthetize the buccal aspect of maxilla, without the undesirable effects on facial structures such as the upper lip, nostrils, and lower eyelids. However, further randomized clinical trials with larger samples are necessary to confirm such results.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Dental/methods , Maxillary Nerve/drug effects , Nerve Block/methods , Adult , Alveolar Process/innervation , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Dental Scaling/methods , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Injections , Male , Mepivacaine/administration & dosage , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement/methods , Palate/innervation , Periodontal Attachment Loss/therapy , Periodontal Pocket/therapy , Periodontitis/therapy , Root Planing/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This paper aims to report and discuss a case in which unusual anatomical variations were observed in the mandibular canal (MC) and the mandibular incisive canal (MIC) in a same patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 49-year-old healthy female was referred for mandibular dental implant placement. Panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) were performed. Cross-sections, axial, coronal, panoramic reconstructions and volume rendering were obtained. RESULTS: The panoramic radiograph did not show any evidence of abnormality. CBCT showed a bifid MC on the right side. It extended to the buccal cortex, exteriorized for 6 mm and returned to its conventional trajectory to reach the mental foramen. On the left side, the MIC initially followed its normal trajectory for 4 mm but, in the canine region, it also extended to the buccal cortex and exteriorized. CONCLUSION: The advent of CBCT in Dentistry allowed a greater accuracy in the diagnosis of anatomical variations in the jaws, preventing injury to the neurovascular bundle and enabling an adequate surgical planning in the region.
