Aim: Analgesia and anxiolysis during dental procedures are important for dental care and
patient compliance. This study aims to compare two classical maxillary nerve block (MNB)
techniques: the greater palatine canal (GPC) and the high tuberosity (HT) approaches,
seldom used in routine dental practice.
Methods: The study was conducted on 30 patients, scheduled for sinus lift surgery, who
were randomly divided into 2 groups: the GPC approach to the MNB was used in 15 and the
HT one in the other 15 patients. Anxiolysis was also used, depending on the results of the
pre- preoperative assessment. Patients\u2019 sensations/pain during the procedure, details about
anesthesia, and the dentist\u2019s considerations were all recorded. Data are expressed as mean
\ub1SD. Statistical tests including ANOVA, \u3c72 following Yates correction and linear regression
analysis were carried out. A < 0.05 p value was considered significant.
Results: Study results showed that the anesthesia was effective and constant in the molar
and premolar area. Additional infiltrations of local anesthetics were necessary for vestibular
and palatal areas in the anterior oral cavity, respectively, in the GPC and HT groups. The
two techniques were equally difficult to carry out in the dentist\u2019s opinion. There were
no differences in pain or unpleasant sensations between the two groups, nor were any
anesthesia-related complications reported.
Conclusion: The GPC approach ensures effective anesthesia in the posterior maxillary
region as far as both the dental pulp and the palatal/vestibular mucous membranes are
concerned; the HT approach did not guarantee adequate anesthesia of the pterygopalatine
branch of the maxillary nerve. These regional anesthesia techniques were characterized
by a low incidence of intra and postoperative pain, no noteworthy complications, and high
patient satisfaction
