Comparison of a controlled injection pressure system with a conventional technique

Do Computerized Delivery System Promote Less Pain and Anxiety Compared to Traditional Local Anesthesia in Dental Procedures? A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess whether the use of computerized devices to deliver local anesthesia results in less pain and anxiety compared to traditional anesthesia in adult dental procedures.

METHODS

This review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42021265046), based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and was structured according to the PICO strategy. The studies were selected based on eligibility criteria, and data were collected by 1 author and reviewed by another.

RESULTS

Nine of the 10 studies included were randomized controlled trials. Differences related to pain and anxiety were observed, which favored computerized techniques; however, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to differences in assessment methods. The studies used different local anesthetics, including 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, or 3% mepivacaine with epinephrine diluted 1:80,000 to 1:200,000. A total of 560 patients were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Computerized anesthesia devices yielded better results than conventionally delivered anesthesia after qualitative evaluation. Nevertheless, conventional anesthesia is widely used, safe, and effective. Due to the heterogeneity among the included studies, it is strongly recommended that new randomized clinical trials using well-defined methodologies be performed to improve the quality of evidence regarding this topic.

Assessment of computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system for pain control during restorative procedures: A randomized controlled trial

Background. . Local anesthesia is given to decrease pain perception during dental treatments, but it may itself be a reason for pain and aggravate the dental fear. Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS) is one of the alternatives for decreasing the patients' pain during local anesthesia. This study compared the time required for the recovery from anesthesia, pain/discomfort during injection and pain/discomfort 24 hours after administering local anesthesia with CCLADS, a standard self-aspirating syringe and a conventional disposable 2-mL syringe. Methods. The study was conducted on 90 subjects (an age group of 20-40 years), who suffered from sensitivity during cavity preparation. They were randomly divided into three groups of 30 individuals each to receive intraligamentary anesthesia (2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) using either of the three techniques: CCLADS, a standard self-aspirating syringe, or a conventional disposable 2-mL syringe. The onset of anesthesia, time required for recovery from anesthesia (in minutes), pain/discomfort during injection and pain/discomfort 24 hours after administering local anesthesia were recorded. Results. The time required for the onset of anesthesia and recovery from anesthesia was shorter with CCLADS (4.83±2.31 and 34.2±1.895, respectively) as compared to the standard self-aspirating group (10.83±1.90 and 43.5±7.581, respectively) and the conventional group (11.00±2.03 and 43.5±6.453, respectively) (P<0.001). The patients in the CCLADS group experienced no pain during local anesthesia administration as compared to the patients in the self-aspirating and conventional groups. The CCLADS and self-aspirating groups showed lower pain response as compared to the conventional group for pain after 24 hours. Conclusion. CCLADS can be an effective and pain-free alternative to conventional local anesthetic procedures.

Influence of information concerning a computerized anesthesia system on dental anxiety: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial among patients requiring an upper third molar extraction was performed to evaluate the anxiety degree after receiving information or not about the functioning of The Wand system. Secondarily, perceived pain and the need of re-anesthesia were assessed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (detailed explanation about The Wand) or control group (no specific information). Local anesthesia with The Wand consisted in a supraperiosteal infiltrative technique injection 1.6 mL at the buccal and 0.2 mL at the palatal side. Distinct questionnaires for assessing dental anxiety and 100-mm visual analog scales to assess pain were delivered. Demographic data, radiological parameters, operative time and type of intervention were also registered. A descriptive bivariate analysis by non-parametric tests to detect differences in anxiety, pain and re-anesthesia was performed by SPSS 22.0 (SPPS Inc. Chicago, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients were assessed for eligibility but 17 participants were lost due to the cancellation of the visit for the surgical intervention. Finally, sixty-eight patients were included (34 participants in each group), 47 women (69.1%) and 21 men (30.9%), with an average age of 28.8 (± 9.3) years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients that received a detailed explanation of The Wand did not have a significant reduction of the anxiety degree and perceived pain during the anesthetic act compared to patients that received no information. The need of re-anesthesia was not related to the anxiety level but was significantly related to increasing operative time.

Comparison of perceived pain and patients’ satisfaction with traditional local anesthesia and single tooth anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Contemporary innovations in the area of local anesthesia have attempted to provide an absolutely pain free experience for patients. Since the introduction of Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Delivery Systems to dentistry, many studies have compared its efficacy and safety to conventional anesthesia. However, very few studies have compared single tooth anesthesia (STA) and traditional local anesthesia.

AIM

To compare pain rating, changes in blood pressure, and heart rate during the local anesthetic injection. The secondary objectives were to measure the patients’ level of satisfaction and the differences in anesthetic efficiency between the STA system and traditional local infiltration.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted and a total of 80 patients with dental restorative needs were enrolled for the study. The patients were evaluated for their general physical status and oral clinical findings before enrollment. Information regarding perceived pain, changes in heart rate and blood pressure, and patients’ satisfaction was collected using an electronic data form and was analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in perceived pain (P = 0.59) and systolic blood pressure (P = 0.09) during anesthetic injection using both traditional and STA techniques. STA patients had a significantly higher heart rate during anesthesia, although a statistically significant difference was noted among the traditional anesthesia and the STA groups even before anesthesia. During the restorative procedure, less pain was perceived by STA patients on the Wong-Baker FACES pain scale, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Analyses of post-procedure patient responses showed that STA patients had a significantly better treatment experience and preferred to have the same method of injection in the future (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

STA system can provide less painful and more comfortable restorative treatment procedures in comparison to the traditional infiltration technique.

Anesthetic efficacy of anterior middle superior alveolar injection in single-visit endodontic therapy: an in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection in single-visit endodontic therapy, an in vivo study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Teeth in the maxillary anterior segment (N = 60) requiring single-visit endodontic (SVE) therapy were selected. A conventional syringe with 26-guage needle containing 1.5 ml lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine was used for the AMSA injection. The SVE therapy was performed using standard protocol. Profoundness of anesthesia during therapy was evaluated at 15-, 30-, 60-, and 90-min intervals using pain rating score and marked on visual analogue scale. In patients who reported pain/ineffectiveness of anesthesia during the course of endodontic therapy, additional supplemental anesthesia (buccal/labial infiltration) was administered. Depending on effectiveness of anesthesia with the AMSA injection alone or the need for additional supplementary injections, patients were divided as: group I-only AMSA and group II-AMSA with one or two supplemental anesthesia.

RESULTS

The AMSA injection was effective in 91.67% of the patients undergoing the SVE therapy and the duration of anesthesia for the AMSA injection alone was adequate until the completion of the SVE therapy. Supplementary injections were required in 8.33% of cases at 15-min interval to achieve profound anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The AMSA injection technique could be used as an alternative to the conventional infiltration technique for anesthetizing teeth in maxillary anterior segment during the SVE therapy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The AMSA injection provides profound pulpal anesthesia of teeth in maxillary anterior segment during endodontic therapy.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain Using a Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD): A Prospective, Randomized Study

There is evidence that the Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD) decreases the pain of oral injections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using the CCLAD in an upright position versus a supine position. Additionally, we evaluated solution deposition pain with the CCLAD when compared to previous studies using a traditional syringe. One hundred ten asymptomatic subjects were randomly given IANBs using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine while in an upright sitting position and supine position, at 2 different appointments, spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Each subject rated the pain for needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Pain ratings were compared between the upright and supine positions using a repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc testing using the Tukey-Kramer procedure. Moderate to severe pain was reported by 10% to 13% of the patients for needle insertion, 74% to 75% for full needle placement, and 8% to 10% for solution deposition. There was no significant difference between groups for phases of the injection. When comparing the injection phases within the groups, the needle placement phase of the injection was statistically more painful than both the needle insertion phase and solution deposition phase ( p = .0001). Using the CCLAD, IANB injection pain of the supine and upright positions was not statistically different. Needle placement was the most painful phase of the injection. Solution deposition pain was less with the CCLAD when compared to other studies of the IANB using a traditional syringe.

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

Background

Fear of local anesthesia (LA) is a significant impediment to dental care as many patients delay or avoid treatment to avert pain. Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD), with constant and controlled rate of flow, present a painless alternative. The present study aimed to compare anxiety and pain perceived with conventional and computerized systems, for different stages of anesthesia delivery when administering various nerve blocks.

Methods

One hundred patients requiring bilateral LA participated in the study. One side was anesthetized using one system and the contralateral side was anesthetized using the other, in two separate appointments. Patients assigned anxiety scores on a 5-point scale and used the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain determination at needle insertion, during delivery of anesthetic solution, immediately after injection, and at the end of the periodontal procedure. Each patient's preference for the delivery system of future injections was also recorded.

Results

Patients reported significantly lower anxiety levels with CCLAD compared to the syringe. Significantly lower mean VAS scores for anesthesia deposition, pain immediately after, and at the end of the periodontal procedure were also noted. However, pain at needle insertion was comparable between the two systems, with no statistical significance. Overall, 64.4% patients preferred CCLAD for future anesthesia.

Conclusion

Lower pain perceived with CCLAD and higher preference for the system suggest that CCLAD should replace conventional syringes to allow pain-free dental treatment.

Cellular therapy with human autologous adipose-derived adult cells of stromal vascular fraction for alopecia areata

BACKGROUND

Most common forms of hair loss (alopecia) are caused by aberrant hair follicle cycling and changes in hair follicle morphology. However, current treatments for alopecia do not specifically target these processes. Adipose-derived stromal vascular cells (ADSVCs) that can be harvested from fat cells are one of the latest breakthroughs in the aesthetic field. The potential use of stem cell-based therapies (SCBT) for the repair and regeneration of various tissues and organs offers a paradigm shift that may provide alternative therapeutic solutions, which can be applied to prevent hair loss. This study aimed to present clinical cases of SCBT for the treatment of alopecia areata by transplantation of ADSVCs in the scalp.

METHODS

Twenty patients (9 women and 11 men) were recruited to our retrospectively registered study. After lipoaspiration, autologous ADSVCs were generated and characterized before the injection of 4-4.7 ×  10⁶ cells into the scalp of the patient. Hair regeneration was assessed by three clinical tests: the pull test, hair quality, and hair density.

RESULTS

All patients experienced hair regeneration, increased hair growth and decreased pull test 3 and 6 months after the treatment with ADSVCs [hair density (85.1 ± 8.7 vs 121.1 ± 12.5 hair/cm², P < 0.0001), hair diameter (60.5 ± 1.8 vs 80.8 ± 2.4μ, P < 0.0001) and pull-test values (4.4 ± 0.3 vs 0.8 ± 0.2, P < 0.0001), untreated versus 6 months post-operative)]. Significant variation was observed between men and women only for hair diameter. No significant differences were observed with age.

CONCLUSIONS

The obtained results prove the efficacy and the safety of the treatment, and satisfaction of the patients confirm the quality of the results.

Avaliação da eficácia anestésica do Morpheus® através da técnica intrasseptal CaZOE na pulpotomia de dentes decíduos: estudo-piloto

Resumo Introdução O medo de sentir dor é um dos principais motivos pelos quais muitos pacientes evitam submeter-se a tratamento dentário, principalmente as crianças. Em vários procedimentos odontopediátricos, o uso de anestésicos locais se faz necessário. O aparelho Morpheus® se propõe a uma introdução da agulha sem dor e anestesia satisfatória com uso de menor volume de anestésico local. Associando-o à técnica CaZOE, o paciente perceberia a pressão antes da dor, podendo assim evitá-la. Objetivo Avaliar a eficácia anestésica do Morpheus® através da técnica intrasseptal CaZOE na pulpotomia de molares inferiores decíduos. Material e método Dezenove voluntários foram selecionados de acordo com os critérios de inclusão e exclusão. O procedimento foi realizado em sessão única, utilizando 0,9 mL de Articaína 4% com epinefrina 1:100.000, através da técnica anestésica CaZOE, empregando o injetor de anestésicos Morpheus®. Esta foi realizada por um único operador, não envolvido na avaliação dos parâmetros da anestesia, e seguiu as recomendações do fabricante. Para a análise dos dados, foi realizada estatística descritiva. Resultado Dos 19 voluntários, 63% foram do sexo feminino e 37%, do masculino. Em pouco mais da metade da amostra (63%), houve sucesso na realização do procedimento. Os casos de insucesso (37%) ocorreram durante a abertura coronária e a amputação da polpa. Conclusão A eficácia anestésica do Morpheus® através da técnica intrasseptal CaZOE na pulpotomia de molares inferiores decíduos foi constatada em 63% da amostra. Para que possa ser comprovada a eficácia desse sistema, são necessários mais estudos.

Use of Pre-Injection Diffusion of Local Anaesthetic as a Means of Reducing Needle Penetration Discomfort

AIM

To determine if pre-injection diffusion of local anaesthetic solution influences the discomfort of needle penetration in the palate.

METHODS

A placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind split-mouth investigation was conducted. 25 healthy adult volunteers were recruited and each received two needle penetrations in a random order during one visit. The penetration sites were 1 cm from the gingival margin of the first maxillary premolars on each side of the mouth. 30 gauge-13 mm needles which were attached to syringes that contained either 2% lidocaine with 0.125mg/ml epinephrine or physiological saline were used. For each penetration an operator encouraged a drop of solution to appear at the end of the needle and placed this drop with the bevel of the needle flat on the palate for 20 seconds. The discomfort was noted on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with end points marked "No pain" and "Unbearable pain".

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in penetration discomfort between solutions, (mean VAS = 26.80±19.36mm for lidocaine and 26.20±18.39mm for saline) however the 2nd penetration was significantly more uncomfortable than the first (mean VAS = 31.00±19.84 mm and 22.00±16.65 mm respectively).

CONCLUSION

Pre-injection diffusion of local anaesthetic solution did not influence the discomfort of needle penetration in the palate.

The Anesthetic Effect of Anterior Middle Superior Alveolar Technique (AMSA)

Anesthesia of the soft and hard tissues of the maxilla may require up to 5 injections. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) and supraperiosteal injection techniques during subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP). Thirty individuals with periodontitis were scheduled for SRP on the buccal aspect of teeth in the anterior maxilla. Before SRP, on a randomly chosen side of the maxilla, the supraperiosteal injection was performed in 1 session, while the AMSA injection was conducted in the contralateral side of the same patient in another session. Immediately after each SRP session, patients rated their pain perception during the procedure with a visual analog scale. No statistically significant differences in mean pain ratings during SRP were found after both anesthetic techniques (P > .05). This preliminary study demonstrated that the AMSA and supraperiosteal injection techniques provided similar anesthetic comfort during SRP. The AMSA injection could be an alternative to anesthetize the buccal aspect of maxilla, without the undesirable effects on facial structures such as the upper lip, nostrils, and lower eyelids. However, further randomized clinical trials with larger samples are necessary to confirm such results.

Relief of Injection Pain During Delivery of Local Anesthesia by Computer-Controlled Anesthetic Delivery System for Periodontal Surgery: Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pain from local anesthetic injection makes patients anxious when visiting a dental clinic. This study aims to determine differences in pain according to types of local anesthetizing methods and to identify the possible contributing factors (e.g., dental anxiety, stress, and sex).

METHODS

Thirty-one patients who underwent open-flap debridement in maxillary premolar and molar areas during treatment for chronic periodontitis were evaluated for this study. A randomized, split-mouth, single-masked clinical trial was implemented. The dental anxiety scale (DAS) and perceived stress scale (PSS) were administered before surgery. Two lidocaine ampules for each patient were used for local infiltration anesthesia (supraperiosteal injection). Injection pain was measured immediately after local infiltration anesthesia using the visual analog pain scale (VAS) questionnaire. Results from the questionnaire were used to assess degree of pain patients feel when a conventional local anesthetic technique (CNV) is used compared with a computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system (CNR).

RESULTS

DAS and PSS did not correlate to injection pain. VAS scores were lower for CNR than for CNV regardless of the order in which anesthetic procedures were applied. VAS score did not differ significantly with sex. Pearson coefficient for correlation between VAS scores for the two procedures was 0.80, also indicating a strong correlation.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study, relief from injection pain is observed using CNR.

A comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% with anterior middle superior alveolar nerve block and infraorbital nerve block: An in vivo study

BACKGROUND

The ideal maxillary injection should produce a rapid onset of profound pulpal anesthesia for multiple teeth from a single needle penetration. The main objective is to compare the efficacy of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% and to compare anterior middle superior alveolar nerve block (AMSANB) and infraorbital nerve block (IONB) for anesthesia of maxillary teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients undergoing root canal treatment of maxillary anteriors and premolars were included and randomly divided into four groups of ten each. Group I: patients receiving AMSANB with articaine, Group II: Patients receiving IONB with articaine, Group III: Patients receiving AMSANB with lidocaine, Group IV: Patients receiving IONB with lidocaine. The scores of onset of anesthesia and pain perception were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Onset of action was fastest for articaine with AMSANB and slowest for lidocaine with IONB by Tukey's test. A significant change was observed in the electrical pulp test readings at onset and at 30 min by paired t-test. All patients experienced mild pain during the procedure recorded by visual analog scale.

CONCLUSION

Articaine 4% proved to be more efficacious than lidocaine 2%, and AMSANB was more advantageous than IONB in securing anesthesia of maxillary anteriors and premolars.

Injection anxiety and pain in men using intracavernosal injection therapy after radical pelvic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Intracavernosal injection (ICI) therapy is a well-recognized treatment strategy with high success rates for men with erectile dysfunction. Despite this, injection anxiety and pain related to injection are significant barriers to its use.

AIMS

This study aims to examine injection anxiety and injection pain in patients using ICI.

METHODS

Men starting ICI therapy post radical pelvic surgery completed questionnaires at initial visit, at each of the two ICI training sessions and at a 4-month follow-up visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Injection Anxiety Scale, Injection Pain Scale, Injection Reaction Inventory, and the Erectile Function Domain of the International Index of Erectile Function.

RESULTS

Average age of the 68 men was 60±8 years. At 4 months, the self-reported frequency of ICI use was: 29%<1/week, 26% 1/week, 40% 2/week, and 5% 3/week. Mean injection anxiety score at first injection was 5.7±2.8 (range 0-10) and significantly decreased to a 4.1±3 at 4 months (P<0.001). At first injection, 65% reported high injection anxiety (≥5) and this significantly decreased to 42% (P=0.003) at 4 months. Anxiety at first injection was negatively related to ICI frequency at 4 months (r=-0.23, P=0.08). Mean injection pain score at first injection was low (2.2±1.8, range 0-10) and 59% rated injection pain≤2. Injection pain remained consistent across time periods. At first injection, injection anxiety (assessed prior to injection) was related to injection pain (r=0.21, P=0.04) and subjects (n=21) who reported high injection anxiety (≥5) across time points, reported an increase in injection pain scores from first injection to 4 months (2.7 vs. 3.7, P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although injection anxiety decreased with ICI use, mean injection anxiety remained at a moderate level (4.4) and 42% of men continued to report "high" injection anxiety at 4 months. While injection pain was low, injection anxiety and pain were related. These data suggest the need for a psychological intervention to help lower injection anxiety related to ICI.

Comparison of the pain levels of computer controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in supraperiosteal injections: a randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

To compare the pain perception using a traditional Syringe vs Computer controlled 'Anaeject' device in supra periosteal injections.

METHODOLOGY

One hundred volunteers were selected on a random basis for the study and were explained about the goals of study and signed the consent form. They served as their own controls, i.e. in the same subject both the computer controlled 'Anaeject' device and traditional syringe were used on the contralateral sides for obtaining anesthesia. Pain levels were recorded during needle prick and anesthetic delivery. Post-operative pain at the site of injection 5 h after the anesthesia was also recorded. Heft Parker visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain levels.

RESULTS

Final analysis was done on 90 subjects. Subjects reported significantly lower pain ratings at the time of needle prick and the delivery of local anesthetic using a computer-controlled 'Anaeject' device as compared to traditional syringes. Pain at the site of injection 5 h post-operative was also low in the computerized anesthesia group but it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In this in vivo study it was found that subjects perception of pain was significantly low for supraperiosteal injections while using computerized anesthesia as compared to that of conventional disposable syringes.

Efficacy and safety of intraseptal and periodontal ligament anesthesia achieved by computer-controlled articaine + epinephrine delivery: a dose-finding study

OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose-dependent anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) and periodontal ligament anesthesia (PLA) obtained with different volumes of 4 % articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ar + Ep) in human mandibular premolars, using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The safety profile of Ar + Ep was also studied by investigating the stability of cardiovascular parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty randomly selected healthy volunteers (ASA I) entered the single-blinded study to receive 16 mg + 4 μg, 24 mg + 6 μg, and 32 mg + 8 μg of Ar + Ep, obtained with different volumes (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 ml, respectively), for the ISA and PLA. Success rate, onset, and duration of profound pulpal anesthesia were evaluated by the electrical pulp tester, while the width of the anesthetic field and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were recorded using the pinprick testing. A monitor was used for the measurement of cardiovascular parameters.

RESULTS

A dose-dependent duration of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was obtained only by the ISA. Success rate, duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, and its width were significantly better in the ISA compared with the PLA. No significant cardiovascular changes were seen in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be suggested that 0.6 and 0.8 ml of 4 % Ar + 1:100,000 Ep, delivered by CCLADS, offer high success rate and effective clinical parameters of ISA as a primary anesthesia.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

It seems that dental procedures requiring profound pulpal, bone, and soft tissue anesthesia could be effectively and safely obtained by mentioned anesthetic protocol.

The use of a respiratory rate biofeedback device to reduce dental anxiety: an exploratory investigation

Anxiety experienced by individuals visiting the dental office to receive treatment is common. Evidence has shown biofeedback to be a useful modality of treatment for numerous maladies associated with anxiety. The purpose of the current pilot study was to investigate the use of a novel biofeedback device (RESPeRATE™) to reduce patients' pre-operative general anxiety levels and consequently reduce the pain associated with dental injections. Eighty-one subjects participated in this study, forty in the experimental group and forty-one in the control group. Subjects in the experimental group used the biofeedback technique, while those in the control group were not exposed to any biofeedback. All subjects filled out a pre-injection anxiety survey, then received an inferior alveolar injection of local anesthetic. Post-injection, both groups were given an anxiety survey and asked to respond to four questions regarding the injection experience using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). With the use of the respiratory rate biofeedback device, there was a significant reduction of negative feelings regarding the overall injection experience, as measured by a VAS. Our findings demonstrate that this novel biofeedback technique may be helpful in the amelioration of dental anxiety, and may help produce a more pleasant overall experience for the patient.

Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the pain levels on opposite sides of the maxilla at needle insertion during delivery of local anesthetic solution and tooth preparation for both conventional and anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) technique with the Wand computer-controlled local anesthesia application.

Material and methods:

Pain scores of 16 patients were evaluated with a 5-point verbal rating scale (VRS) and data were analyzed nonparametrically. Pain differences at needle insertion, during delivery of local anesthetic, and at tooth preparation, for conventional versus the Wand technique, were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test (p=0.01).

Results:

The Wand technique had a lower pain level compared to conventional injection for needle insertion (p<0.01). In the anesthetic delivery phase, pain level for the Wand technique was lower (p<0.01). However, there was no difference between the Wand and conventional technique for pain level during tooth preparation (p>0.05).

Conclusions;

The AMSA technique using the Wand is recommended for prosthodontic treatment because it reduces pain during needle insertion and during delivery of local anaesthetic. However, these two techniques have the same pain levels for tooth preparation.

Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe

OBJECTIVE

This study compared a computerised device (the Wand) with a conventional syringe in terms of the pain of needle insertion and injection during inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block injection.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The subjects were 40 patients between the ages of 18 and 30 years requiring local anaesthesia for dental restoration in the mandible. Before anaesthetic administration, the patients' anxiety levels were determined. Contralateral IAN injections were administrated at two separate appointments with random use of either the Wand or a conventional syringe. Following the injection, the patients used both the pain rating score (PRS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the intensity of pain.

RESULTS

When pain was measured after the injection, the Wand was found to be less painful than the syringe for the pain of both needle insertion and injection (p <0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Wand technique resulted in significantly lower pain scores during the IAN block injections. Most of the patients preferred the IAN injection with the Wand for future dental injections.

Injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to determine the pain associated with needle insertion, placement, and solution deposition for the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred two emergency patients with irreversible pulpitis received IAN block injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The patients recorded pain of the 3 injection stages on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Moderate-to-severe pain may occur 57% to 89% of the time with the IAN block. Needle placement was significantly more painful than needle insertion for men and significantly more painful than either insertion or deposition for women (P < .03). There was no statistical difference between the pain for men or women with respect to needle insertion, placement, or deposition pain (P > .05). Deposition of 0.2 to 0.4 mL anesthetic during placement did not significantly reduce placement pain for either gender (P = .753).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, 57% to 89% of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis have the potential for moderate to severe pain with the IAN block.

A double-blind comparison of a supplemental interligamentary injection of fentanyl and mepivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for irreversible pulpitis

The analgesic efficacy of supplemental interligamentary fentanyl injection for management of endodontic debridement patients was investigated through a randomized, double-blind study. Forty patients who presented with acute symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of the upper first molar tooth participated in the study. Patients were scheduled for endodontic debridement, for which infiltration anesthesia with 1.8 ml of 2% mepivacaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 was the standard primary anesthetic technique. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. The first group received supplemental interligamentary injection with 0.4 ml fentanyl 0.05 mg/ml, while the second group received supplemental interligamentary injection with 0.4 ml mepivacaine with epinephrine 1:200,000. The intraligamental-injected drug was given as 0.2 ml on the mesial and 0.2 ml on the distal aspect of the tooth. Results indicated that fentanyl provided relatively greater analgesia, yielding satisfactory relief during different stages of the procedure, including access cavity preparation, pulpotomy, and pulp extirpation. Fentanyl is effective when used in conjunction with local anesthetics to provide adequate analgesia during endodontic debridement, and this finding provides strong evidence that peripheral actions are involved in the analgesia produced by opioid drugs in inflammatory pain.

The Effects of a 2-Stage Injection Technique on Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study was to compare the pain of a traditional 1-stage inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block injection to a 2-stage IAN block technique. Using a crossover design, 51 subjects randomly received, in a single-blinded manner, either the traditional IAN block or the 2-stage IAN block in 2 appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. For the 2-stage injection, the needle was inserted submucosally and 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was slowly given over 1 minute. After 5 minutes, the needle was reinserted and advanced to the target site (needle placement), and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited. For the traditional IAN block, following needle penetration, the needle was advanced while depositing 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (needle placement) and then 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited at the target site. A Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to measure the pain of needle insertion, needle placement, and anesthetic solution deposition. There were no significant differences, as analyzed by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, between needle insertion and solution deposition for the 2 techniques in men or women. However, there was significantly less pain with the 2-stage injection for needle placement in women. In conclusion, the 2-stage injection significantly reduced the pain of needle placement for women when compared to the traditional IAN technique.

Comparison of the Wand with a conventional technique

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to compare the Wand computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system with a conventional technique as to pain of needle insertion and the pain during injection according to the patient's dental anxiety levels.

STUDY DESIGN

The study sample comprised 52 healthy patients about to undergo routine tooth extraction. A dental anxiety scale was used to determine anxiety levels before anesthetic administration. Anesthesia technique selection was made according to the patients' anxiety level. After each injection, patients completed pain rating score and visual analog scale to rate their pain perception during needle insertion and injection.

RESULTS

The patients receiving the Wand system reported significantly less pain of needle insertion and less pain during injection (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Under the conditions of this study, although the anxiety levels of patients were higher in Wand injection than conventional syringe injection, the Wand seemed to be less painful. However, the mean ratings of pain were mostly mild or no pain for both injections.

Anesthetic efficacy of the palatal–anterior superior alveolar injection

BACKGROUND

A single palatal-anterior superior alveolar, or P-ASA, injection has been reported to provide pulpal anesthesia of the four maxillary incisors and usually the canines. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine using a computer-assisted injection system to administer the P-ASA injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a double-blind manner, the authors used a crossover design to administer randomly P-ASA injections of 1.4 milliliters of the lidocaine solution and 1.4 mL of the mepivacaine solution using the computer-assisted injection system at two appointments to 40 subjects. They used a pulp tester to test for anesthesia of the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines in four-minute cycles for 72 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive maximum readings (80 readings) with the pulp tester were obtained.

RESULTS

For the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32 to 58 percent for the six anterior teeth. For the mepivacaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 22 to 38 percent. Except for the left canine, the lidocaine solution was significantly more likely to result in pulpal anesthesia than the use of the mepivacaine solution. The duration of pulpal anesthesia, for both solutions, declined steadily over 72 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Using the computer-assisted injection system for the P-ASA injection, we concluded that the rather modest-to-low success rates of the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions would not ensure predictable pulpal anesthesia of the four maxillary incisors and the canines.

Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare the pain of injection and post-injection pain of the AMSA injection using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system versus a conventional syringe.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received 2 blinded AMSA injections using the Wand Plus system and a conventional syringe, at 2 separate appointments. The AMSA injection site was centered halfway between the midpalatine raphe and gingival margin of the first and second premolars. The pain of needle insertion, anesthetic solution deposition pain, and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker VAS for the 2 AMSA injections.

RESULTS

For needle insertion, 38% of the subjects had moderate/severe pain with the Wand Plus((R)) and 34% moderate/severe pain with the conventional syringe, with no significant difference between techniques. There was a significant difference for solution deposition pain, with the conventional syringe causing more moderate/severe pain (42% conventional vs. 25% for the Wand Plus. Regarding postinjection pain, after numbness wore off there was no significant difference between the Wand Plus injection technique (0% moderate pain) and the conventional syringe technique (8% moderate pain). Postinjection, approximately 8% to 10% of the subjects experienced slight palatal swelling and 2% experienced temporary numbness. These problems resolved quickly and were considered minor.

CONCLUSIONS

The AMSA injection, using the Wand Plus, resulted in similar pain ratings for needle insertion as the conventional syringe but statistically lower pain ratings upon anesthetic solution deposition. However, the AMSA, using either the Wand Plus or a conventional syringe, has the potential to be a painful injection. We found the incidence of postinjection pain and sequelae was low with both techniques.

Injection pain and postinjection pain of the palatal-anterior superior alveolar injection, administered with the Wand Plus® system, comparing 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 3% mepivacaine

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare injection pain and postinjection pain of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system to administer the palatal-anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) injection. Additionally study was done to determine if the use of topical anesthetic decreased the pain of needle insertion with the P-ASA injection.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, P-ASA injections of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.4 mL of 3% mepivacaine, at 2 separate appointments. The P-ASA injection was administered, utilizing the Wand Plus system, 6 to 10 mm into the incisive canal located lingual to the central incisors. The pain of needle insertion, needle placement, solution deposition and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale for the 2 P-ASA injections. Eighty injections were randomly administered in the study, 40 using topical anesthetic gel and 40 using a placebo gel.

RESULTS

For needle insertion, 30% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 43% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. There was no significant difference (P > .05) between the topical and placebo groups. For needle placement into the incisive canal, 54% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 58% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. For anesthetic solution deposition, 8% of the subjects reported moderate pain with the lidocaine solution and 12% reported moderate pain with the mepivacaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Regarding postinjection pain, when anesthesia wore off on the day of the injection, 20% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 14% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. Pain ratings decreased over the next 3 days. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Postinjection, 12% and 18% of the subjects experienced temporary numbness/paresthesia of the incisive papilla with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. Twenty percent and 28% of the subjects had incisive papilla swelling or soreness with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-ASA injection of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine, administered with the Wand Plus, has the potential to be a painful injection. The use of topical anesthetic did not significantly reduce pain of needle insertion when compared to a placebo. The incidence of postinjection pain, temporary numbness/paresthesia, and incisive papilla swelling or soreness would indicate that some pain and problems occur with the P-ASA technique, regardless of whether 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine is used.

Computerized local dental anesthetic systems: patient and dentist satisfaction

A computer controlled dental anesthetic delivery system was studied with the OBJECTIVE of evaluating and comparing the unit to the traditional method of anesthetic delivery. The research design and METHOD of study involved the use of trained dentists who used both types of delivery systems on patients seen during their routine practice of dentistry. After the dental appointment was finished each dentist completed a survey concerning the injection. Patients completed a survey before the injection concerning their previous anesthetic experiences and completed another survey at the end of the dental appointment concerning the injection they had just received. Statistical analyses yielded RESULTS showing the two methods were rated very similarly by both patients and dentists. CONCLUSIONS resulting from the study are that computer controlled dental anesthetic injections and traditional anesthetic injections were accepted equally well by both dentists and patients.