4.7 Article

Effect of Local Anesthesia on Trigeminal Somatosensory-evoked Magnetic Fields

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 91, Issue 12, Pages 1196-1201

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034512462398

Keywords

inferior alveolar nerve block; neuroimaging; primary somatosensory cortex; group analysis; standard stereotaxic brain coordinate system; MEG

Funding

  1. JSPS [2224 2012/23650217, 23390354, 23700885]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23390354, 23650217, 23135526, 23700885] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For objective neurophysiological evaluation of the function of the trigeminal system, magnetoencephalography-based TSEF (trigeminal somatosensory-evoked field) assessment would be valuable in providing spatial and temporal profiles of cortical responses. However, this necessitates knowledge of how TSEF varies with trigeminal nerve dysfunctions. We introduced a conduction block of the trigeminal nerve using local anesthesia (lidocaine) to temporally mimic nerve dysfunctions, and monitored TSEF changes. Following an electrical stimulation of the lower lip, a magnetic response with peak latency of approximately 20 ms was identified in all participants. Dipole for the peak was estimated on the post-central gyrus in the participant's own magnetic resonance image. After normalization to Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space and inter-participant data integration, the summary equivalent current dipole localization among participants remained in the post-central gyrus, suggesting validity of the use of MNI space. Partial anesthesia of the lower lip led to a loss of the waveform characteristics of TSEF for electrical stimulation to the trigeminal nerve. We verified that the 20-ms latency cortical response of TSEF components localized at the primary sensory cortex can serve as a robust neurofunctional marker of experimental trigeminal nerve dysfunction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available