Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume 105, Issue 2 , Pages 139-146, 2006

Comparison of the Gow-Gates Mandibular Block and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Using a Standardized Protocol

School of Dentistry, National Taiwan University and National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Received 10 March 2005; received in revised form 6 April 2005; accepted 7 June 2005.

Article Outline

Background

Although several previous studies have compared the efficacy of Gow-Gates mandibular block (GGMB) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), the results remain controversial. This study used an objective, standardized and precise protocol to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and success rate of GGMB and IANB.

Methods

The study group consisted of 162 patients (93 males and 69 females) who were randomly allocated to receive GGMB or IANB for extraction of third molars. Both methods used 2.7 mL of 2% xylocaine for each patient. Pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia of mandibular central incisors, canines, first premolars and first molars were evaluated at 0, 5, 10, 15 and 60 minutes after injection of local anesthetic solution using both an electric pulp tester and a sharp explorer.

Results

The success rates of pulpal anesthesia in the IANB group (central incisor, 6%; canine, 37%; first premolar, 54%; first molar, 88%) were not significantly different from the GGMB group (central incisor, 8.1%; canine, 37.1%; first premolar, 54.8%; first molar, 83.9%). All subjects achieved 100% lip numbness with both methods. At 60 minutes after injection, the success rates of gingival tissue anesthesia in canine buccal and lingual areas were higher in the IANB group (100% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (91.9% and 93.5%, respectively). In the molar buccal area, the success rates at 5 and 60 minutes after injection were higher in the IANB group (97% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (88.7% and 91.9%, respectively). Furthermore, the success rates in the molar lingual area at 10, 15 and 60 minutes after injection were higher in the IANB group (100%, 100% and 100%, respectively) than in the GGMB group (91.9%, 93.5% and 91.9%, respectively). Although IANB achieved higher success rates of gingival tissue anesthesia in some gingival areas, no significant difference between the two methods was found in overall efficacy.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the efficacy of pulpal and gingival tissue anesthesia are not significantly different between the GGMB and IANB methods.

Key Words:  gingival tissue anesthesia , Gow-Gates mandibular block , inferior alveolar nerve block , pulpal anesthesia

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Watson JE , Gow-Gates GA . A clinical evaluation of the Gow-Gates mandibular block technique . NZ Dent J . 1976;72:220–223
  2. Malamed SF . The Gow-Gates mandibular block. Evaluation after 4,275 cases . Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol . 1981;51:463–467
  3. Levy TP . An assessment of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for third molar surgery . J Am Dent Assoc . 1981;103:37–41
  4. Montagnese TA , Reader A , Melfi R . A comparative study of the Gow-Gates technique and a standard technique for mandibular anesthesia . J Endod . 1984;10:158–163
  5. Sisk AL . Evaluation of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for oral surgery . Anesth Prog . 1985;32:143–146
  6. Malamed SF . In: Handbook of Local Anesthesia . 5th edition. St Louis: Mosby; 2004;p. 197–230
  7. Watson JE . Appendix: some anatomic aspects of the Gow-Gates technique for mandibular anesthesia . Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol . 1973;36:328–330
  8. Gow-Gates GA , Watson JE . Gow-Gates mandibular block-applied anatomy and histology . Anesth Prog . 1989;36:193–195
  9. Meechan JG . How to overcome failed local anaesthesia . Br Dent J . 1999;186:15–20
  10. McKissock MD , Meyer RD . Accessory innervation of the mandible: identification and anesthesia options . Gen Dent . 2000;48:662–669
  11. Trebus DL , Singh G , Meyer RD . Anatomical basis for inferior alveolar nerve block . Gen Dent . 1998;46:632–636
  12. Cohen HP , Cha BY , Spangberg LS . Endodontic anesthesia in mandibular molars: a clinical study . J Endod . 1993;19:370–373
  13. Madan GA , Madan SG , Madan AD . Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block: exploring the alternatives . J Am Dent Assoc . 2002;133:843–846
  14. Waikakul A , Punwutikorn J . A comparative study of the extra-intraoral landmark technique and the direct technique for inferior alveolar nerve block . J Oral Maxillofac Surg . 1991;49:804–809
  15. Jofre J , Munzenmayer C . Design and preliminary evaluation of an extraoral Gow-Gates guiding device . Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod . 1998;85:661–664
  16. Lustig JP , Zusman SP . Immediate complications of local anesthetic administered to 1,007 consecutive patients . J Am Dent Assoc . 1999;130:496–499
  17. Wilkie GJ . Temporary uniocular blindness and ophthal-moplegia associated with a mandibular block injection. A case report . Aust Dent J . 2000;45:131–133
  18. Heasman PA , Reid G . An unusual sequela to an inferior dental block injection . Br Dent J . 1995;179:97–98
  19. Dryden JA . An unusual complication resulting from a Gow-Gates mandibular block . Compendium . 1993;14:94–98

PII: S0929-6646(09)60335-1

doi:10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60335-1

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume 105, Issue 2 , Pages 139-146, 2006

Article Tools