title: A comparative study of the percutaneous versus intraoral technique for mental nerve block.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Mental nerve block is frequently used to aid repair of facial lacerations; both percutaneous and intraoral approaches to blocking this nerve are used, but have never been compared. The authors compared the two techniques for pain of administration and effectiveness of anesthesia.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study was conducted using ten healthy volunteers aged 22 to 33 years. Patients having prior experience with mental nerve blocks, lidocaine allergy, active oral/facial infection, or previous facial fractures were excluded. Bilateral mental nerve blocks were done using intraoral technique on one side and percutaneous technique on the other. Both techniques were used by the same investigator and were carried out with 27-gauge needles and 2.5 mL of 2% buffered lidocaine at room temperature injected over 20 seconds. The oral mucosa was topically anesthetized with viscous lidocaine for 1 minute prior to intraoral injection. The orders of the blocks and sides of the face anesthetized were randomized. Subjective and objective pain (visual-analog scale), efficacy (anesthesia of lower lip), time to onset, and duration of anesthesia were evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The intraoral technique was subjectively less painful than the percutaneous approach in nine of ten subjects (p = 0.02). Scores on the visual-analog pain scale were significantly lower for the intraoral technique (p = 0.03). Intraoral injection produced lower-lip anesthesia in 10/10 subjects versus 7/10 for percutaneous (p = 0.25). Times to onset (approximately 1-2 minutes) and durations of anesthesia (approximately one hour) were similar for the two techniques.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The intraoral approach to the mental nerve block with adjunctive topical anesthesia was subjectively and objectively less painful than the percutaneous approach without adjunctive anesthesia. While the intraoral approach had a greater efficacy of lower-lip anesthesia and a longer duration of action, these differences were not statistically significant.
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Emergency Medical Services University Hospitals, Charlottesville 22908, USA.
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Syverud
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Jenkins
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Schwab
authors.forename: M T
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Lynch
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Knoop
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Trott
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002680:Chin / Q000294:innervation*; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008012:Lidocaine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D008297:Male; D009407:Nerve Block / Q000379:methods*; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D008012:Lidocaine