Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1049  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1011-1014  

Comparative evaluation of classical inferior alveolar nerve block and gow-gates nerve block for surgical removal of mandibular third molar: A prospective study


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, MES Dental College, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, India

Date of Submission30-Mar-2021
Date of Decision01-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance24-Apr-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Abhilash Mathews Thomas
Department of OMFS, MES dental college, MES academy of medical sciences, Malaparamb, Perinthalmanna, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_279_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: The most commonly used nerve block procedure to anesthetize the mandibular arch is the classical inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). In 1973, Gow-Gates developed a new procedure known as the Gow Gates nerve block, to achieve anesthesia in the same area with fewer complications. Methodology: The study comprised 80 patients who reported for the surgical removal of impacted third molar. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups– Group I received Gow-gates nerve block and Group II were administered classical IANB. Positive aspiration, meantime for the onset of anesthesia, mouth opening before and after each block and pain during the surgical procedure were compared. Results: Group 1 yielded positive aspiration in 2.5% of the cases (one patient) and 15% had positive aspiration in Group 2 (six patient). The mean time taken for onset of anesthesia was 6.16 min in Group 1 as compared to 2.78 min in Group 2. While comparing the quality of anesthesia between the blocks, 87.5% of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2 had successful anesthesia equally i.e., 35 of the 40 patients fell into category 1 and 2 of the eight-point category rating scale in both the groups and the remaining five patients (12.5%) in both the groups had unsuccessful anesthesia. Conclusion: Both approaches offer quality anesthesia in the posterior mandibular area when meticulously followed. The percentage of unsuccessful anesthesia in the Gow-Gates group could be attributed to the inexperience of the operator. Postoperative comfort and patient satisfaction were greater in the other group.

Keywords: Impacted tooth, mandible, mandibular nerve, nerve block


How to cite this article:
Thomas AM, Mangalath U, Abida R, Aslam S, Soman S, Nair RB. Comparative evaluation of classical inferior alveolar nerve block and gow-gates nerve block for surgical removal of mandibular third molar: A prospective study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:1011-4

How to cite this URL:
Thomas AM, Mangalath U, Abida R, Aslam S, Soman S, Nair RB. Comparative evaluation of classical inferior alveolar nerve block and gow-gates nerve block for surgical removal of mandibular third molar: A prospective study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 8];13, Suppl S2:1011-4. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1011/330063




   Introduction Top


Surgical removal of mandibular 3rd molar is one of the most commonly performed maxillofacial procedures. Dental treatment has been synonymous with pain since time immemorial, and this is the sole reason why patients are anxious in seeking it. Administration of local anesthesia is the major step before the commencement of this common maxillofacial procedure. Hence, efficient pain control is of utmost importance.

There are various techniques to anesthetize the mandible by targeting the inferior alveolar nerve at different locations. Classical inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is the most commonly used technique to anesthetize the lower arch. However, the success rate of the IANB is in fact only modest and is associated with complications such as accidental intravascular injection and nerve injury.

To increase the success rate of mandibular anesthesia and to reduce its complications, Gow-Gates in 1973 introduced a new technique for attaining anesthesia of the hemimandible. This new alternative approach relays on both intraoral and extraoral landmarks unlike the classical IANB which depends only on intraoral landmarks. Several studies have shown higher success rates with the Gow-Gates nerve block (92%–100%) than the conventional inferior alveolar nerve technique (65%–86%).[1],[2],[3]

This present study done to evaluate the efficacy of mandibular anesthesia with a Classical IANB and Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block for the surgical removal of the mandibular third molar.


   Methodology Top


The study was conducted in the Department of Oral and maxillofacial surgery at MES Dental College, Perinthalmanna, Kerala.

A total of 80 patients were included in the study, forty of whom were administered Gow-Gates (Group I) and the other forty were given classical IANB (Group II) for the surgical removal of the mandibular third molar.


   Results Top


Data was compared using SPSS (IBM, Newyork, USA) software. The values were represented in Number (%) and mean ± standard deviation Onset of anesthesia and mouth opening was analyzed using “t-test.” Quality of anesthesia will be analyzed using “Mann–Whitney U test.

The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 34 years where the mean age of patients in Group 1 was 25.1 ± 4 and in Group 2 was 25.3 ± 4.5. Statistically, the difference in mean age between two groups was not significant (P = 0.855) which indicated that the distribution of patients according to age in both the groups are homogenous.

Out of the 40 patients in Group 1, 20 were male patients and 20 were female patients. Whereas in Group 2, 15 subjects were female and 25 were male. Chi-square test was done to assess the significance and was found to be statistically insignificant (P = 0.260) which also indicated that the gender distribution in both groups are homogeneous.

When comparing the positive aspiration among both the groups, Group 1 yielded positive aspiration in 2.5% of the cases (one patient) and 15% had positive aspiration in Group 2 (six patient). This difference was statistically significant.

The mean time taken for onset of anesthesia was 6.16 min in Group 1 as compared to 2.78 min in Group 2. Statistically, this difference was significant (P < 0.01).

In Group 1, the mean mouth opening before the intervention was 45.3 mm and after the administration of gowgates technique it became 45.8 mm. This difference in mouth opening was statistically significant (P = 0.018).

In Group 2, there was no change in the mean mouth opening (43.0 mm) before and after administration of IANB. When comparing the mean mouth opening between the groups, the result was statistically insignificant.

While comparing the quality of anesthesia between the blocks, 87.5% of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2 had successful anesthesia equally i.e., 35 of the 40 patients fell into category 1 and 2 of the eight-point category rating scale in both the groups and the remaining five patients (12.5%) in both the groups had unsuccessful anesthesia-category 3 and 4 of the eight-point category rating scale. Statistically, this result was insignificant.


   Discussion Top


In order to anesthetize the mandibular teeth, there are different injection methods, the classical IANB being the most widely employed and probably the most effective injection technique in obtaining mandibular anesthesia. It can also be difficult to perform and even when correctly administered, has the greatest rate of clinical errors. This technique is often referred to as the Halsted technique, named after William Stewart Halsted, MD, who, in 1884, delivered the first recorded injection of a local anesthetic (epinephrine cocaine) for oral surgery in a patient.

Gow-Gates first described a true mandibular nerve block in 1973 to overcome the disadvantages of the IANB. He claimed 98.4% Grade A anesthesia, including ipsilateral central incisor anesthesia; a 1.6 percent positive aspiration incidence; a relatively insignificant failure rate; and good acceptance by the patient. Its higher success rate, its lower incidence of positive aspiration, and the absence of problems with accessory sensory innervation to the mandibular teeth are significant advantages of the Gow-Gates technique over IANB. The only apparent disadvantage is a relatively minor one: While learning the Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block, an administrator experienced with the IANB may feel uncomfortable with the GowGates technique. Indeed, the incidence of unsuccessful GGMNB anesthesia may be as high as (if not higher than) that of IANB until clinical experience is gained by the administrator.

In the present study, while comparing the number of positive aspiration between the blocks, one patient of the total 40 patients yielded positive aspiration while administering the GowGates block (2.5%) and in 6 patients IANB yielded positive aspiration (15%). Yang et al. 2013[4] found that no patients in the GowGates group and 5 in the IANB group had positive aspiration which was similar to the result of our present study. In another similar study done by Dubey et al. in 2017, positive aspiration was observed in 4 (8%) patients in the IANB group and none in the GowGates group. The reduction in the positive aspirations in the gowgates gates group is due to the fact that the site of needle placement is 1–2 mm anteriomedial to the condylar neck which is comparatively an avascular area.

The numbness of the lower lip was taken taken as the onset of anesthesia in this study. Mean time taken for the onset of action in the gowgates group was 6.16 min and in the IANB group, it was 2.78 min which was comparable to the study done by Maqsood et al.[5] where in the mean onset of action in GowGates group was 3.29 ± 1.80 min and in the IANB group, it was 1.73 ± 0.91 min. In other studies which compared the onset of action of gowgates technique and IANB, Li in 2009[6] reported that 69 patients in the GowGow group felt no pain within 5 min of injection, whereas in the IANB group 118 patients felt no pain within the same duration (Each group had 210 patients). The data from these two aforementioned studies were pooled in and analyzed statistically by Yu et al. in 2017.[7] The results indicated that the conventional IANB technique has a statistically significant faster analgesic onset time than the GowGates method.

Sequential appearance of anesthesia, in our study was found to be starting from the canine region-buccal aspect followed by the lingual and then the buccal aspect of the 1st molar which signifies that the IAN was the first nerve to be anesthetized followed by the lingual and then the long buccal nerve. This is likely due to the anatomical positioning of the fibers in the nerve trunk.

An eight-point category rating scale was used to assess the quality of the anesthesia in our study. 87.5% of patients (35 patients) in both groups had a successful anesthesia-not requiring a second injection to complete the procedure. 12.5% did require a second injection to complete the procedure which was considered unsuccessful. This difference between the groups was not statically significant. Kohler et al.[8] demonstrated a higher success rate for extractions with the Gow-Gates technique when the volume was increased from 1.8 to 3.6 mL (18% vs. 82%). Both the techniques in the current study used a 1.8 mL volume to maximize the amount of anesthetic solution used. Todorovic et al.[9] found that the conventional IANB was better than the Gow-Gates technique while comparing between the blocks for extractions. Agren and Danielsson,[10] Montagnese et al.,[11] and Hung et al.[12] used the pulp tester to evaluate anesthesia and found no difference between the Gow-Gates and conventional IANBs. Therefore, for pulpal anesthesia, success should not be significantly different between the two techniques.

On comparing the effect of mouth opening before and after the administration of the blocks, the GowGates group had a mean increase of 0.5 mm whereas the IANB group did not show any change in the mouth opening.


   Conclusion Top


The percentage of successful anesthesia in both the groups was same which implies that both approaches offer quality anesthesia in the posterior mandibular area when meticulously followed. In contrast to the conventional technique, Gow-Gates technique demands greater skill. The percentage of unsuccessful anesthesia in Gow-Gates group in the present study could be attributed to the inexperience of the operator in administering the nerve block. The time required for anesthesia to commence in GowGates group was greater than that of the conventional group, so it is advisable that the operator should have an idea about the onset of action and not to repeat the block. In all cases, lingual, long buccal, and inferior alveolar branches were anesthetized using Gow-Gates technique and single branch failure was not observed, indicating that no additional block or infiltration is required once the block becomes successful. Compared to the inferior dental nerve block procedure, postoperative comfort and patient satisfaction were greater in the other group.

The study also suggests that the technique of Gow-Gates is superior to IANB but requires skill and greater expertise that one gains with practice. The current analysis was carried out by a single operator and was unicentric. Further multicentric trials can then be carried out with a wider sample size for accurate clinical findings.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Meechan JG. Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:621-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Levy TP. An assessment of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for third molar surgery. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;103:37-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Sisk AL. Evaluation of the Gow-Gates mandibular block for oral surgery. Anesth Prog 1985;32:143-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Yang J, Liu W, Gao Q. The anesthetic effects of Gow-Gates technique of inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2013;31:381-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Maqsood A, Asim MA, Aslam F, Khalid R, Khalid O. Comparison of efficacy of Gow-Gates mandibular nerve block and inferior alveolar nerve block for the extraction of mandibular molars. Ann Abbasi Shaheed Hosp Karachi Med Dent Coll 2018;23:177-83.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Li D, Nan X, Xie G. Clinical application and evaluation of three types of blockanesthesia of inferior alveolar nerve. Chin J Pract Stomatol 2009;2:36-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yu F, Xiao Y, Liu H, Wu F, Lou F, Chen D, et al. Evaluation of three block anesthesia methods for pain management during mandibular third molar extraction: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2017;7:40987.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kohler BR, Castellón L, Laissle G. Gow-Gates technique: A pilot study for extraction procedures with clinical evaluation and review. Anesth Prog 2008;55:2-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Todorovic L, Stajcić Z, Petrović V. Mandibular versus inferior dental anaesthesia: Clinical assessment of three different techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;15:733-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Agren E, Danielsson K. Conduction block analgesia in the mandible. A comparative investigation of the techniques of Fischer and Gow-Gates. Swed Dent J 1981;5:81-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Montagnese TA, Reader A, Melfi R. A comparative study of the Gow-Gates technique and a standard technique for mandibular anesthesia. J Endod 1984;10:158-63.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hung PC, Chang HH, Yang PJ, Kuo YS, Lan WH, Lin CP. Comparison of the Gow-Gates mandibular block and inferior alveolar nerve block using a standardized protocol. J Formos Med Assoc 2006;105:139-46.  Back to cited text no. 12
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed501    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal