Objective: To compare intraosseous anesthesia (IA) with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques. Materials and methods: A simple-blind, prospective clinical study was carried out. Each patient underwent two anesthetic techniques: conventional (local infiltration and locoregional anesthetic block) and intraosseous, for res-pective dental operations. In order to allow comparison of IA versus conventional anesthesia, the two operations were similar and affected the same two teeth in opposite quadrants. Results: A total of 200 oral anesthetic procedures were carried out in 100 patients. The mean patient age was 28.6±9.92 years. Fifty-five vestibular infiltrations and 45 mandibular blocks were performed. All patients were also subjected to IA. The type of intervention (conservative or endodontic) exerted no significant influence (p=0.58 and p=0.62, respectively). The latency period was 8.52±2.44 minutes for the conventional techniques and 0.89±0.73 minutes for IA - the difference being statistically significant (p<0.05). Regarding patient anesthesia sensation, the infiltrative techniques lasted a maximum of one hour, the inferior alveolar nerve blocks lasted between 1-3 hours, and IA lasted only 2.5 minutes - the differences being statistically significant (p?0.0000, ?=0.29). Anesthetic success was recorded in 89% of the conventional procedures and in 78% of the IA. Most patients preferred IA (61%) (p=0.0032). Conclusions: The two anesthetic procedures have been compared for latency, duration of anesthetic effect, anesthetic success rate and patient preference. Intraosseous anesthesia has been shown to be a technique to be taken into account when planning conservative and endodontic treatments. © Medicina Oral S. L.