J Endod. 2010 Mar;36(3):429-33. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.023.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized single-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block administered by using a peripheral nerve stimulator compared with a conventional IAN block by using a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.
Forty-six adult volunteers randomly received a conventional IAN block or an IAN block administered with a peripheral nerve stimulator at 2 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the first molar, first premolar, and lateral incisor in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained through the 60th minute.
With the peripheral nerve stimulator for the IAN block, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32%-37%. For the conventional IAN block, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32%-45%. There was no significant difference between the 2 IAN block techniques.
We concluded that the IAN block administered with a peripheral nerve stimulator did not increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia when compared with a conventional IAN block.
本前瞻性、随机、单盲研究的目的是比较使用周围神经刺激器进行下牙槽神经（IAN）阻滞与使用含有 2%利多卡因和 1:100000 肾上腺素的管筒进行传统 IAN 阻滞获得的牙髓麻醉程度。
46 名成年志愿者在 2 次不同的就诊时随机接受传统 IAN 阻滞或使用周围神经刺激器进行的 IAN 阻滞。使用牙髓电活力测试仪在 4 分钟的周期内每 4 分钟测试一次第一磨牙、第一前磨牙和侧切牙的麻醉情况，持续 60 分钟。当连续 2 次 80 读数在 15 分钟内获得，并且 80 读数在第 60 分钟内持续保持时，认为麻醉成功。
使用周围神经刺激器进行 IAN 阻滞时，成功的牙髓麻醉范围为 32%-37%。对于传统的 IAN 阻滞，成功的牙髓麻醉范围为 32%-45%。两种 IAN 阻滞技术之间没有显著差异。
我们的结论是，与传统的 IAN 阻滞相比，使用周围神经刺激器进行的 IAN 阻滞并未增加牙髓麻醉的成功率。
