The defense will argue the following:
1) the inferior alveolar nerve was injured during the administration of the local anesthetic for the subject dental procedure (mandibular block) and due to the implant placement, etc and that this is an unavoidable risk of a mandibular block. This argument is a more effective argument in cases of paresthesia (incomplete severing of the inferior alveolar nerve), than with complete anesthesia (complete severance of the inferior alveolar nerve) given the width of the bevel tipped syringe needle and the width of the inferior alveolar nerve at the location of the mandibular block;
2) the general dentist is experienced in placing implant, performing extractions, doing root canal treatments, etc. and there was no need to refer the plaintiff to an oral surgeon or alternatively, the dentist did refer the plaintiff to an oral surgeon (failed to record this fact in the dental records), but plaintiff chose to spend the extra money;
3) the plaintiff signed a written consent acknowledging the risks of nerve injury, etc. If there is no written consent, the defense will argue that plaintiff was orally informed of the risk, whether the dental chart confirms this or not;
4) the dentist performed an excellent textbook implant placement, extraction, root canal treatment, etc. using appropriate technique for the subject dental procedure. Bad things just happen;
5) the subject implant placement, extraction, root canal procedure, etc. appeared from the diagnostic workup by the treating dentist to be an uncomplicated procedure;
6) the plaintiff has an incomplete injury to the inferior alveolar nerve and the symptoms of paresthesia/dysesthesia will resolve in time (certainly after the jury verdict).