Aim:The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the efficiency of the intraligamentary (periodontal ligament) injection with supraperiosteal injections in extraction of maxillary teeth, using pain during injection and extraction as the parameters.
Materials and methods:Thirty patients indicated for extraction of maxillary molars were randomly allocated into one of the following intervention groups (n = 15): intraligamentary injection and supraperiosteal injection. In both groups, anesthesia was given using a standard volume of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline 1:2,00,000 with a 27G needle. Patients indicated pain during injection and extraction and this was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS). Statistical analysis of the pain scores was done using chi-square test, Levene's test, and Mann-Whitney U test with the alpha error set at p = 0.05.
Results:The mean VAS score for pain during injection was higher for the intraligamentary injection group (VAS = 18.67) than for the supraperiosteal infiltration group (VAS = 16), but this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The VAS score during extraction was significantly higher for the intraligamentary injection group (VAS = 34.67) than for the infiltration group (VAS = 20) (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:Periodontal ligament injections may not be optimal, "stand-alone" alternatives to supraperiosteal injections in the exodontia of maxillary teeth.Clinical significance: Intraligamentary or periodontal injections are useful in extractions on patients with bleeding disorders, as they eliminate the risk of encountering blood vessels during injections as in the case of nerve blocks. The efficacy of intraligamentary injections in extraction of mandibular teeth has been
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.