Maxillary nerve block: A comparison between the greater palatine canal and high tuberosity approaches.

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’ sensations/pain during the procedure, details about anesthesia, and the dentist’s considerations were all recorded. Data are expressed as mean ±SD. Statistical tests including ANOVA, χ2 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’s 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.