Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Sep 1;19(9):1117-1121.

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Intraligamentary and Supraperiosteal Injections in the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Affiliations
  • PMID: 30287714
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Intraligamentary and Supraperiosteal Injections in the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Mokshi Jain et al. J Contemp Dent Pract. .

Abstract

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 widely studied. This study evaluates the efficacy of this alternate injection technique on maxillary teeth extraction and, if proved successful, can be useful in patients where supraperiosteal injections are contraindicated.

Keywords: Anesthesia; Infiltration; Intraligamentary; Pain Visual analog scale..

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

Substances