Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2022, vol. 59, nr 4, October-December, p. 523–529

doi: 10.17219/dmp/135897

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Shetty S, Dalvi S, Katge F, Patil D, Chimata VK, Shetty A. Comparison of pain perception between computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery and the conventional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block in children. Dent Med Probl. 2022;59(4):523–529. doi:10.17219/dmp/135897

Comparison of pain perception between computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery and the conventional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block in children

Shilpa Shetty1,B,D,E,F, Shagufta Dalvi1,A,B,D, Farhin Katge1,A,E,F, Devendra Patil1,C, Vamsi Krishna Chimata1,D,F, Ashveeta Shetty2,C

1 Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Terna Dental College, Navi Mumbai, India

2 Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, D.Y. Patil University School Of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, India

Abstract

Background. Local anesthesia (LA) is commonly used for pain control in clinical dental practice. However, it is often perceived as the most painful part of the treatment and the factor leading to the avoidance of dental care. Hence, research on better means of pain management is being conducted.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare pain perception using the No Pain III™ computer-controlled local anesthesia delivery (CCLAD) system and the conventional syringe, for inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in children.
Material and methods. Thirty children aged 6–12 years were included in the study. Children were randomly allocated into 2 groups by the flip of a coin. Group A received LA by conventional syringe and group B received LA by No Pain III™, on the contralateral side. Physiological parameters including blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) were assessed at baseline, during the deposition and after the deposition of LA. A subjective evaluation of pain perception was assessed using the Wong–Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBS). The measured values were subjected to statistical analysis.
Results. A statistically significant difference was observed between group A and group B for pain perception using the WBS, systolic BP and RR.
Conclusions. The use of the No Pain III™ CCLAD system resulted in reduced pain perception and better acceptance when compared to the use of the conventional syringe, for IANB in children.

Key words

children, pain perception, inferior alveolar nerve block, computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, Wong–Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale

References (30)

  1. Dulger O, Koray M, Soley S, et al. Evaluating anxiety and pain in patients receiving a local anaesthetic injection: Traditional syringe versus a computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system. Balk J Stom. 2007;11(2):100–104. https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/1107-1141/2007/1107-11410702100D.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2021.
  2. Bansal N, Saha S, Jaiswal J, Samadi F. Pain elimination during injection with newer electronic devices: A comparative evaluation in children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;7(2):71–76. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1240
  3. Aggrawal K, Lamba AK, Faraz F, Tandon S, Makker K. Comparison of anxiety and pain perceived with conventional and computerized local anesthesia delivery systems for different stages of anesthesia delivery in maxillary and mandibular nerve blocks. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018;18(6):367–373. doi:10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.6.367
  4. Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anesthesia techniques and devices: An update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013;4(1):19–24. doi:10.4103/0975-5950.117873
  5. Franck LS, Greenberg CS, Stevens B. Pain assessment in infants and children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2000;47(3):487–512. doi:10.1016/s0031-3955(05)70222-4
  6. Tomlinson D, von Baeyer CL, Stinson JN, Sung L. A systematic review of faces scales for the self-report of pain intensity in children. Pediatrics. 2010;126(5):e1168–e1198. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1609
  7. Berrendero S, Hriptulova O, Salido MP, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. “Comparative study of conventional anesthesia technique versus computerized system anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial”. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):2307–2315. doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03553-5
  8. Vallakatla V, Vallakatla S, Dutta S, Sengupta P, Penukonda R. Conventional and comouflage syringe during maxillary dental procedures: Relevance to anxiety and pain levels in children. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2020;13(1):253–258. doi:10.13005/bpj/1883
  9. Ghorbanzadeh S, Alimadadi H, Zargar N, Dianat O. Effect of vibratory stimulation on pain during local anesthesia injections: A clinical trial. Restor Dent Endod. 2019;44(4):e40. doi:10.5395/rde.2019.44.e40
  10. Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesth Prog. 2005;52(4):122–127. doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[122:ASP]2.0.CO;2
  11. Tahmassebi JF, Nikolaou M, Duggal MS. A comparison of pain and anxiety associated with the administration of maxillary local analgesia with Wand and conventional technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(2):77–82. doi:10.1007/BF03321604
  12. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs. traditional injection: A comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22(6):458–462. PMID:11132503.
  13. San Martin-Lopez AL, Garrigos-Esparza LD, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra JF, de Pozos-Guillen AJ. Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005;29(3):239–243. doi:10.17796/jcpd.29.3.jgh607l870051882
  14. Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK. Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012;30(4):323–328. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.108931
  15. de Menezes Abreu DM, Leal SC, Mulder J, Frencken JE. Pain experience after conventional, atraumatic, and ultraconservative restorative treatments in 6- to 7-yr-old children. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011;119(2):163–168. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00806.x
  16. Goyal R, Nandlal B, Prashanth. Pain perception and procedural tolerance with computer controlled and conventional local anesthetic technique: An in vivo comparative study. Indian J Pain. 2014;28(3):143–148. doi:10.4103/0970-5333.138441
  17. Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 1999;21(7):421–424. PMID:10633514.
  18. Koyutürk AE, Avsar A, Sumer M. Efficacy of dental practitioners in injection techniques: Computerized device and traditional syringe. Quintessence Int. 2009;40(1):73–77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23807610_Efficacy_of_dental_practitioners_in_injection_techniques_Computerized_device_and_traditional_syringe. Accessed February 6, 2021.
  19. Akinmoladun VI, Okoje VN, Akinosun OM, Adisa AO, Uchendu OC. Evaluation of the haemodynamic and metabolic effects of local anaesthetic agent in routine dental extractions. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013;12(4):424–428. doi:10.1007/s12663-012-0449-4
  20. Meyer FU. Haemodynamic changes under emotional stress following a minor surgical procedure under local anaesthesia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;16(6):688–694. doi:10.1016/s0901-5027(87)80054-1
  21. Tolas AG, Pflug AE, Halter JB. Arterial plasma epinephrine concentrations and hemodynamic responses after dental injection of local anesthetic with epinephrine. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982;104(1):41–43. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1982.0114
  22. Meechan JG, Parry G, Rattray DT, Thomason JM. Effects of dental local anaesthetics in cardiac transplant recipients. Br Dent J. 2002;192(3):161–163. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801323
  23. Liau FL, Kok SH, Lee JJ, et al. Cardiovascular influence of dental anxiety during local anesthesia for tooth extraction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105(1):16–26. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.015
  24. Dowling J. Autonomic indices and reactive pain reports on the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1982;14(4):387–392. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(82)90146-4
  25. Sanadhya YK, Sanadhya S, Jalihal S, Nagarajappa R, Ramesh G, Tak M. Hemodynamic, ventilator, and ECG changes in pediatric patients undergoing extraction. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31(1):10–16. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.112393
  26. West GA, Reid KH, Bastawi AE. Autonomic responses to dental procedures in pedodontic patients during a standard restoration session. J Dent Res. 1983;62(6):728–732. doi:10.1177/00220345830620060801
  27. Nicholson JW, Berry TG, Summitt JB, Yuan CH, Witten TM. Pain perception and utility: A comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques. Gen Dent. 2001;49(2):167–173. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11365750_Pain_perception_and_utility_A_comparison_of_the_syringe_and_computerized_local_injection_techniques. Accessed February 1, 2021.
  28. Pashley EL, Nelson R, Pashley DH. Pressures created by dental injections. J Dent Res. 1981;60(10):1742–1748. doi:10.1177/00220345810600100301
  29. Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98(1):124–131. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.02.064
  30. Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Taşdemir T. Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Br Dent J. 2008;205(5):E10. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.757