Telf. 963 39 50 37 -
Telf. +34 648 48 44 22

Blog de Cirugía e Implantología Oral

12 Mar 2016

Side effects and complications of intraosseous anesthesia and conventional oral anesthesia

Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Oltra-Moscardó MJ, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha M. Side effects and complications of intraosseous anesthesia and conventional oral anesthesia. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 May 1;17 (3):e430-4.

Objective: To analyze the side effects and complications following intraosseous anesthesia (IA), comparing them
with those of the conventional oral anesthesia techniques.

Material and method: A simple-blind, prospective clinical study was carried out. Each patient underwent two
anesthetic techniques: conventional (local infiltration and locoregional anesthetic block) and intraosseous, for
respective dental operations. In order to allow comparison of IA versus conventional anesthesia, the two operations
were similar and affected the same two teeth in opposite quadrants. Heart rate was recorded in all cases before injection of the anesthetic solution and again 30 seconds after injection. The complications observed after anesthetic administration were recorded.

Results: A total of 200 oral anesthetic procedures were carried out in 100 patients. Both IA and conventional anesthesia resulted in a significant increase in heart rate, though the increase was greater with the latter technique.
Incidents were infrequent with either anesthetic technique, with no significant differences between them. Regarding
the complications, there were significant differences in pain at the injection site, with more intense pain in the case of IA (x2=3.532, p=0.030, Φ2=0.02), while the limitation of oral aperture was more pronounced with conventional anesthesia (x2=5.128, p<0.05, Φ2=0.014). Post-anesthetic biting showed no significant differences (x2=4.082, p=0.121, Φ2=0.009).

Conclusions: Both anesthetic techniques significantly increased heart rate, and IA caused comparatively more pain at the injection site, while limited oral aperture was more frequent with conventional anesthesia. Post-anesthetic biting showed no significant differences between the two techniques.


[download id=»6285″]

Cirugía e implantología oral de la Universitat de València: Cirubuca