en تخصصي Special مقالات اصيل Original Article <span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span calibri="" style="font-family:"><b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">Background</span></b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">:&nbsp;Implantology is a widely accepted treatment, as it restores aesthetics and function, and is the preferred option for replacing missing teeth. In mandibular implant surgery, the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) is the most common anesthetic technique, as it eliminates sensation on one side of the jaw, floor of the mouth, teeth, tongue, and gums. However, its high failure rate is due to the technical difficulty of the injection procedure. Additionally, deep anesthesia from IANB carries risks such as damage to the mandibular canal. In contrast, infiltration anesthesia desensitizes the inferior alveolar nerve locally, allowing patients to perceive pain and alert the dentist if the implant approaches the nerve. We aimed to compare the effects of IANB and local infiltration anesthesia for posterior mandibular implant surgery.</span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span calibri="" style="font-family:"><b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">Methods</span></b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">: This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial followed a split-mouth design, involving 29 patients undergoing bilateral implant surgery in the posterior mandible within a single session. On one side, IANB anesthesia was used, and on the other, infiltration was administered. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).</span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span calibri="" style="font-family:"><b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">Results</span></b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">:&nbsp;All 58 implants were analyzed. The VAS scores during surgery were significantly higher for the infiltration technique (<i>P</i> = 0.03). However, no significant difference in pain was observed 24 hours post-surgery (<i>P</i> = 0.223).</span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span calibri="" style="font-family:"><b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">Conclusion</span></b><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times="">:&nbsp;Both IANB and infiltration anesthesia are effective for mandibular implant surgery, but IANB offers more reliable pain control, making it preferable for complex cases, while infiltration is suitable for less invasive procedures.</span></span></span></span><br> &nbsp; Local Anesthesia, Infiltration, Nerve Block, Dental Implants, Mandible 45 52 http://wjps.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1097-7&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Nima Dehghani nimadt2002@gmail.com 100319475328460017523 100319475328460017523 Yes Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mona Mohajeri Tehrani 100319475328460017524 100319475328460017524 No Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohadeseh Azarsina 100319475328460017525 100319475328460017525 No Esthetic and Restorative Dentist, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Shamim Chinian 100319475328460017526 100319475328460017526 No Researcher at International school of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Xaniar Mahmoudi 100319475328460017527 100319475328460017527 No Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran