Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT07590037
NCT07590037Not yet recruitingNot Applicable

Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy and Safety Between Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and the Infiltrative Technique for the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases in Posterior Mandibular Implants: A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

University of Barcelona1 site in 1 country30 target enrollmentStarted: September 1, 2026Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Not yet recruiting
Enrollment
30
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Anesthetic efficacy

Study Overview

Brief Summary

This triple-blind randomized clinical trial aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy and safety of two local anesthesia techniques for the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants: inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and infiltrative anesthesia with 4% articaine and epinephrine 1:100,000.

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease affecting the tissues around dental implants, characterized by progressive bone loss and clinical signs of inflammation. When non-surgical therapy is insufficient, surgical treatment is required, usually involving flap elevation, debridement of granulation tissue, implant surface decontamination, and, depending on the defect, resective, regenerative, or combined surgery.

Effective local anesthesia is essential in these procedures, especially in the posterior mandible, where dense bone may limit anesthetic diffusion. IANB is the conventional technique for achieving profound mandibular anesthesia, but it may fail due to anatomical variations, accessory innervation, or technical difficulty. Infiltrative anesthesia has been proposed as an alternative, particularly with articaine because of its high diffusion capacity, although its predictability in complex mandibular surgery remains uncertain.

The main objective is to compare the efficacy of IANB and infiltrative anesthesia, measured by the need for re-anesthesia during surgery. Secondary objectives include assessing safety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain, duration of anesthesia, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.

Adult patients requiring surgical treatment for peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants at the Dental Hospital of the University of Barcelona will be included. Eligible participants must be ≥18 years old, medically fit for surgery, and able to understand the study and complete the questionnaires. Exclusion criteria include pregnancy, allergy to articaine or epinephrine, uncontrolled systemic disease, coagulation disorders or anticoagulant medication, ASA III or higher status, and contraindications to conventional analgesic or anti-inflammatory medication.

Participants will be randomly assigned to either the IANB group or the infiltrative anesthesia group. Randomization will be performed using a computer-generated sequence placed in opaque, sequentially numbered envelopes. The patient, surgeon, outcome assessor, and statistician will remain blinded to group allocation.

The study includes three visits. At the first visit, eligibility will be assessed and informed consent obtained. At the second visit, surgery will be performed after the assigned anesthetic technique. Patients will record pain using visual analogue scales at injection, during surgery, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and daily until day 7, as well as rescue medication use and sick leave. At the third visit, 7-9 days after surgery, postoperative healing, complications, adverse events, pain diary, and patient satisfaction will be assessed.

The primary outcome is anesthetic efficacy, defined as absence of need for re-anesthesia. Secondary variables include demographic factors, systemic disease, medication, smoking, dental anxiety, type and duration of surgery, surgeon experience, number and position of implants, intraoperative and postoperative pain, duration of anesthesia, adverse events, complications, and patient-reported experience measures.

Data will be analyzed using Stata/IC 15.1. Quantitative variables will be described using means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges, depending on normality. Qualitative variables will be presented as frequencies and percentages. Group comparisons will use appropriate statistical tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.

As a pilot exploratory trial, the study will include 30 patients, 15 per group. Its aim is to assess feasibility, estimate preliminary event rates, and generate data for future confirmatory trials. The study will follow the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable data protection regulations. Participation will be voluntary, anonymous, and based on written informed consent.

Detailed Description

This study is a triple-blind randomized clinical trial designed to compare the anesthetic efficacy and safety of two local anesthesia techniques used for the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants: the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and the infiltrative technique (TINF), both performed with 4% articaine and epinephrine 1:100,000.

Background and rationale Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease affecting the tissues surrounding osseointegrated dental implants. It is characterized by progressive peri-implant bone loss together with clinical signs of inflammation. It represents one of the most relevant biological complications in implant dentistry.

Initial management of peri-implant diseases usually involves non-surgical therapy, including mechanical debridement of the implant surface, antiseptic irrigation, and, in selected cases, local or systemic antimicrobial therapy. However, when peri-implantitis progresses or does not respond adequately to non-surgical treatment, surgical intervention is often required. Surgical treatment may include flap elevation, removal of granulation tissue, implant surface decontamination, bone recontouring, regenerative procedures, soft tissue surgery, or combined approaches, depending on the morphology and severity of the defect.

Adequate local anesthesia is essential to perform these procedures safely and predictably. This is particularly relevant in the posterior mandible, where dense cortical bone may limit the diffusion of local anesthetic solutions. Traditionally, the inferior alveolar nerve block has been the standard technique for achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular posterior procedures. Although generally effective, its success may be affected by anatomical variation, accessory innervation, technical difficulty, or incomplete nerve blockade. In addition, although uncommon, transient neurosensory complications have been described.

The infiltrative technique has gained interest as a possible alternative, especially when using articaine, which has high tissue diffusion capacity due to its chemical structure. Articaine contains a thiophene ring, which increases lipid solubility and may facilitate penetration through dense tissues. It also has a rapid onset of action and favorable pharmacological characteristics for oral surgery. Despite this, the available evidence suggests that IANB may still provide greater anesthetic predictability in complex surgical procedures. There is a lack of well-designed randomized clinical trials directly comparing IANB and infiltrative anesthesia specifically in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator)

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • Adult patients (≥18 years) requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in the posterior mandibular sector.
  • Patients without relevant systemic disease (ASA II or lower).
  • Sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the study and informed consent and to complete the questionnaires adequately.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Pregnant patients.
  • Patients with allergy or hypersensitivity to articaine or epinephrine.
  • Patients with uncontrolled systemic diseases.
  • Patients with coagulation disorders or medication that alters coagulation.
  • Patients who may be able to recognize the anesthetic technique used, such as dentists.
  • Drugs or systemic diseases (ASA III or higher) that contraindicate surgical intervention or the use of anesthetics and/or vasoconstrictors.
  • Patients with relative or absolute contraindication to conventional analgesic or anti-inflammatory regimens.

Arms & Interventions

Infiltrative

Active Comparator

One anesthetic cartridge (1.8 mL of articaine 4% 1:100,000) using the vestibular infiltrative technique (supraperiosteal paraapical). Subsequently administer half a cartridge of anesthetic (0.9 mL of articaine 4% 1:100,000) using the infiltrative technique (supraperiosteal paraapical) lingually in the sublingual area of the implant to be treated.

Intervention: Comparison of anesthetic efficacy and safety between nerve block and infiltrative technique for periimplantitis surgical treatment in poosterior mandibular implants (Procedure)

Inferior dental nerve block

Experimental

One articaine cartridge (1.8 mL of articaine 4% at 1:100,000) with the direct technique for the inferior dental nerve block and half a cartridge (0.9 mL) for the buccal nerve block.

Intervention: Comparison of anesthetic efficacy and safety between nerve block and infiltrative technique for periimplantitis surgical treatment in poosterior mandibular implants (Procedure)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Anesthetic efficacy

Time Frame: 1 hour

This variable is defined as the absence of need for re-anesthesia during the surgical procedure and the Vincent's sign achievement within 6 minutes

Secondary Outcomes

  • To evaluate the safety of the anesthetic techniques (IANB versus infiltrative technique) used in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants.(7 days)
  • To analyze postoperative pain associated with the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in posterior mandibular implants in patients anesthetized with IANB compared with those anesthetized with infiltrative techniques.(7 days)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Adrià Jorba García

Prof. dr (DDS, MS,PhD)

University of Barcelona

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials