FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Journal of veterinary dentistry2023; 42(1); 48-54; doi: 10.1177/08987564231164769

Evaluation of Three Methods of Sensory Function Testing for the Assessment of Successful Maxillary Nerve Blockade in Horses.

Abstract: Maxillary nerve blocks (MNBs) commonly facilitate dental surgeries in standing horses. The goal of this prospective, blinded, cross-over design trial including 15 client-owned horses was to evaluate 3 methods of sensory function testing for confirming a successful MNB. Testing was performed bilaterally before sedation, 5 min after sedation, and 15 and 30 min after MNB with 0.5% bupivacaine and involved a needle prick dorsal to each naris, hemostat clamping of each nostril, and gingival algometry (measuring sensitivity to pain). Responses to stimulation were numerically scored and scores were summed up to a total score. Total score increases on the blocked side by ≥ 2 between baseline and 30 min Post MNB recordings signified a successful MNB. Sedation in the preceding 6 h, presence of sino-nasal disease, side of dental pathology, age, butorphanol administration, and detomidine dosing (µg/kg/min) throughout the tooth extraction procedure were recorded. In 73% of horses, MNB was successful. Sedation in the preceding 6 h (P = .732), age (P = .936), side of pathology (P = .516), and sino-nasal disease (P = .769) were not associated with total scores. Detomidine dosage and butorphanol use did not differ between horses in which the MNB was considered successful and for those in which it was not (P = .967 and P = .538, respectively). Scores obtained with gingival algometry were less closely associated with total scores (rho = .649) than those obtained with needle prick and nostril clamping (rho = .819 and .892, respectively). Therefore, needle prick and nostril clamping are considered the more reliable methods for use in clinical practice to determine the success of an MNB.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-04-03 PubMed ID: 37013274PubMed Central: PMC11610202DOI: 10.1177/08987564231164769Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research is about evaluating the effectiveness of three different sensory function testing methods in determining whether a maxillary nerve block (MNB), used in dental surgeries for horses, was successful or not.

Research Design and Procedure

  • The study was designed as a prospective, blinded, cross-over trial involving 15 client-owned horses.
  • The three methods evaluated in the study were needle prick, nostril clamping, and gingival algometry (a method to measure sensitivity to pain).
  • These tests were performed before sedation, 5 minutes after sedation, and 15 and 30 minutes after the MNB using 0.5% bupivacaine.
  • Different parameters such as sedation in the last 6 hours, the presence of sino-nasal disease, dental pathology’s side, the horse’s age, butorphanol administration, and detomidine dosing were recorded during the tooth extraction procedure.

Outcome assessment

  • Responses to the sensory tests were gauged and numerically scored. Any increase in the total score by at least two points on the side that experienced the MNB signified the success of the block.
  • The study found that for 73% of the horses, the MNB was successful.
  • Parameters such as sedation in the last 6 hours, dental pathology’s side, age, and sino-nasal disease didn’t influence the total scores.
  • There was no significant difference in detomidine dosage and butorphanol use between horses with successful and unsuccessful MNB.

Main Findings

  • Among the three testing methods, needle prick and nostril clamping were found to be more reliable and strongly associated with the total scores as compared to gingival algometry.
  • Hence, these two methods – needle prick and nostril clamping – are recommended for use in clinical practice to determine the success of an MNB in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
McAndrews A, Zarucco L, Hopster K, Stefanovski D, Foster D, Driessen B. (2023). Evaluation of Three Methods of Sensory Function Testing for the Assessment of Successful Maxillary Nerve Blockade in Horses. J Vet Dent, 42(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/08987564231164769

Publication

Journal of veterinary dentistry
ISSN: 2470-4083
NlmUniqueID: 9426426
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 42
Issue: 1
Pages: 48-54

Researcher Affiliations

McAndrews, Amelie
  • Garden State Equine Veterinary Dentistry, Princeton, NJ, USA.
  • Department of Clinical Studies-NBC, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA.
Zarucco, Laura
  • Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Universita Degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, TO, Italia.
Hopster, Klaus
  • Department of Clinical Studies-NBC, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA.
Stefanovski, Darko
  • Department of Clinical Studies-NBC, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA.
Foster, David
  • Department of Clinical Studies-NBC, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA.
Driessen, Bernd
  • Department of Clinical Studies-NBC, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / physiology
  • Nerve Block / veterinary
  • Nerve Block / methods
  • Cross-Over Studies
  • Female
  • Maxillary Nerve
  • Prospective Studies
  • Male
  • Bupivacaine / administration & dosage
  • Anesthetics, Local / administration & dosage
  • Pain Measurement / veterinary
  • Pain Measurement / methods
  • Anesthesia, Dental / veterinary
  • Anesthesia, Dental / methods
  • Tooth Extraction / veterinary
  • Imidazoles

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

This article includes 38 references
  1. Tremaine WH. Local analgesic techniques for the equine head. Equine Vet Ed 2007;19(9):495-503.
  2. Caramello V, Zarucco L, Foster D, Boston R, Stefanovski D, Orsini JA. Equine check tooth extraction: comparison of outcomes for five extraction methods. Equine Vet J 2020;52(2):181-186.
    pubmed: 31260572
  3. Dugdale AHA, Taylor PM. Equine anesthesia-associated mortality: where are we now?. Vet Anaesth Analg 2016;43(3):242-255.
    pubmed: 26970940
  4. Cantwell SL, Robertson SA. Equine pain management. .
  5. Ong CKS, Lirk P, Seymour RA, Jenkin BJ. The efficacy of preemptive analgesia for acute postoperative pain management: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2005;100(3):757-773.
    pubmed: 15728066
  6. Dixon PM, Hawkes C, Townsend N. Complications of equine oral surgery. Vet Clin Equine 2009;24(3):499-514.
    pubmed: 19203698
  7. Dixon PM, Dacre I, Dacre K, Tremaine WH, McCann J, Barakzai S. Standing oral extraction of cheek teeth in 100 horses. Equine Vet J 2005;37(2):105-112.
    pubmed: 15779621
  8. Kennedy R, Reardon RJR, James O, Wilson C, Dixon PM. A long-term study of equine cheek teeth post-extraction complications: 428 cheek teeth (2004–2018). Equine Vet J 2020;52(6):811-822.
    pubmed: 32144822
  9. Menzies RA, Easley J. Standing equine dental surgery. Vet Clin Equine 2014;30(1):63-90.
    pubmed: 24680207
  10. Langeneckert F, Witte T, Schellenberger F. Cheek tooth extraction via minimally invasive transbuccal approach and intradental screw placement in 54 equids. Vet Surg 2015;44(8):1012-1020.
    pubmed: 26455833
  11. Rice MK, Henry TJ. Standing intraoral extractions of cheek teeth aided by partial crown removal in 165 horses (2010–2016). Equine Vet J 2018;50(1):48-53.
    pubmed: 28744895
  12. Doherty T, Schumacher J. Dental restraint and anesthesia. .
  13. Wilmink S, Warren-Smith CMR, Robers VLH. Validation of accuracy of needle placement in diagnostic local anesthesia of the maxillary nerve for investigation of trigeminally mediated headshaking in horses. Vet Rec 2015;176(6):148.
    pubmed: 25433055
  14. Nannarone S, Bini G, Vuerich M, Menchetti L, Arcelli R, Angeli G. Retrograde maxillary nerve perineural injection: a tomographic and anatomical evaluation of the infraorbital canal and evaluation of needle type and size in equine cadavers. Vet J 2016;217:33-39.
    pubmed: 27810208
  15. Hermans H, Veraa S, Wolschrijn CF, van Loon JPAM. Local anesthetic techniques for the equine head, towards guided techniques and new applications. Equine Vet Ed 2019;31(8):432-440.
  16. Bardell D, Iff I, Mosing M. A cadaver study comparing two approaches to perform a maxillary nerve block in the horse. Equine Vet J 2010;42(8):721-725.
    pubmed: 21039802
  17. Staszyk C, Bienert A, Baumer W, Feige K, Gasse H. Simulation of local anesthetic nerve block of the infraorbital nerve within the pterygopalatine fossa: anatomical landmarks defined by computed tomography. Res Vet Sci 2008;85(3):399-406.
    pubmed: 18371997
  18. O’Neill HD, Garcia-Pereira FL, Mohankumar PS. Ultrasound-guided injection of the maxillary nerve in the horse. Equine Vet J 2014;46(2):180-184.
    pubmed: 23679076
  19. Stauffer S, Cordner B, Dixon J, Witte T. Maxillary nerve blocks in horses: an experimental comparison of surface landmark and ultrasound-guided techniques. Vet Anaesth Analg 2017;44(4):951-958.
    pubmed: 28720393
  20. Tanner RB, Hubbell JAE. A retrospective study of the incidence and management of complications associated with regional nerve blocks in equine dental patients. J Vet Dent 2019;36(1):40-45.
    pubmed: 31138048
  21. Hagag U, Tawfiek MG. Blind versus ultrasound-guided maxillary nerve block in donkeys. Vet Anaesth Analg 2018;45(1):103-110.
    pubmed: 29174959
  22. Hopster K, Bienert-Zeit A, Hopster-Iversen C, Driessen B. Compuflo®-assisted performance of a maxillary nerve block in horses: evaluation of a novel technology as a training tool and guide in clinical practice. J Anim Res Vet Sci 2020;4(22).
  23. Ashley FH, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioral assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies. Equine Vet J 2005;37(6):565-575.
    pubmed: 16295937
  24. Love E. Recognition and assessment of pain in horses. .
  25. Love EJ, Murrell J, Whay HR. Thermal and mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in horses: a review. Vet Anaesth Analg 2011;38(1):3-14.
    pubmed: 21214705
  26. Veres-Nyeki KO, Nyeki J, Bodo G, Spadavecchi C. Quantitative sensory testing of the equine face. Equine Vet J 2021;53(1):177-185.
    pubmed: 32306423
  27. Van der Cruyssen F, Van Teighem LV, Croonenborghs TM. Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: current evidence and future perspectives. E J P 2020;24(8):1425-1439.
    pmc: PMC7497080pubmed: 32557971
  28. Ogimoto T, Ogawa T, Sumiyoshi K, Matsuka Y, Kovano K. Pressure-pain threshold determination in the oral mucosa: validity and reliability. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(7):620-626.
    pubmed: 12153450
  29. Kothari SF, Shimosaka M, Lida T. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of sensory changes induced by local anesthetics block of two different trigeminal nerve branches. Clin Oral Invest 2019;23(6):2637-2649.
    pubmed: 30327949
  30. Muir WW. Pain: mechanisms and management in horses. Vet Clin Equine 2010;26(3):467-480.
    pubmed: 21056294
  31. Luna SPL, Lopes C, Rosa AC. Validation of mechanical, electrical and thermal nociceptive stimulation methods in horses. Equine Vet J 2015;47(5):609-614.
    pubmed: 25130475
  32. Haussler K. Pressure algometry for the detection of mechanical nociceptive thresholds in horses. Animals (Basel) 2020;10(12):2195.
    pmc: PMC7760268pubmed: 33255216
  33. Hubbell JAE. Horses. .
  34. Rieder CM, Staszyk C, Klaus H, Feige K, Bienert-Zeit A. Maxillary nerve block within the equine pteryopalatine fossa with different volumes: practicability, efficacy, and side-effects. Pferdheilkunde 2016;32(2):132-140.
  35. Julius D, Basbaum AI. Molecular mechanisms of nociception. Nature 2001;413(6852):203-210.
    pubmed: 11557989
  36. Yamada M, Suzuta K, Higuchi H. Sensitivity of the tooth to thermal stimulation. Japan J Physiol 1968;18(3):310-325.
    pubmed: 5303536
  37. Gross ME, Pope ER, Jarboe JM, O’Brien DP, Dodam JR, Polkow-Haight J. Regional anaesthesia of the infraorbital and inferior alveolar nerves during noninvasive tooth pulp stimulation in halothane-anesthetized cats. Am J Vet Res 2000;61(10):1245-1247.
    pubmed: 11039555
  38. Kamerling SG, Winter M, Cravens C, Bagwell A. Objective assessment of detomidine-induced analgesia and sedation in the horse. European J Pharm 1988;151(22):1-8.
    pubmed: 3416917

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.