To compare global surgical pain under nerve block and mandibular infiltration anesthesia techniques, and to evaluate pain during drilling and the distance to the mandibular canal in posterior mandible implant surgeries. A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted to compare nerve block (Group A) to mandibular infiltration (Group B) techniques for dental implant placement. Global surgical pain (VAS = visual analogue scale), pain during drilling or implant placement (MPQ = McGill pain questionnaire) and distance to the mandibular canal (Image J) were statically analyzed. Age, gender, anxiety levels, tooth to be replaced, implant size, adjacent teeth and duration of surgery were also analyzed. 172 patients were included and 283 dental implants were analyzed. VAS values were significantly higher in Group B (p<0.05). In Group A, 99% of the surgeries were performed painlessly during drilling and implant placement, but in Group B, 11.6% of implant placements (17 implants) felt pain during these surgical steps. Mean distance to mandibular canal (3.8 mm, range: 0.0 to 7.0) in those 17 implants placed under mandibular infiltration was clinically and statistically similar to the mean distance (3.0 mm, range: 0.0 to 9.0) of 130 implants placed painless (p=0.10). Pain during drilling under mandibular infiltration was significantly associated with the duration of surgery (p<0.05) and to both adjacent teeth being present (p<0.05). Although both techniques are safe and effective for placing implants in the posterior mandible, nerve block provides a more profound analgesia than mandibular infiltration. When placing implants under mandibular infiltration, as getting closer to the canal does not increase the feeling of pain, it is not recommended to use the presence of pain as a preventive resource to avoid inferior alveolar nerve injuries.