Assessment of a palatal approach-anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) nerve block with the Wand in paediatric dental patients

Computer-controlled Intraligamentary local anaesthesia in extraction of mandibular primary molars: randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Local anesthesia (LA) poses a threat in children more than the treatment process itself, so pediatric dentists are always demanding less painful techniques. Computer-controlled Intraligamentary anaesthesia (CC-ILA) is designed to reduce injection pain and side effects of conventional techniques. The present study aims to assess the pain experience using Computer-controlled Intraligamentary anaesthesia (CC-ILA) during injection and its effectiveness in controlling pain during extraction of mandibular primary molars in pediatric patients.

METHODS

This randomized controlled clinical trial includes 50 healthy cooperative children, aged 5-7 years with mandibular primary molars indicated for extraction. They were randomly allocated to two groups according to LA technique: test group received CC-ILA and control group received Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Pain was measured during injection and extraction: physiologically using Heart rate (HR), subjectively using Face-Pain-Scale (FPS), and objectively using Sound-Eye-Motor scale (SEM). Patients were recalled after 24-h to record lip-biting events. Data was collected and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 50 children (29 females and 21 males) with mean age 6.10 ± 0.76 participated in the study. There were significantly lower scores in the heart rate in the CC-ILA group during injection (p = 0.04), but no significant difference was recorded between the two groups during extraction (p = 0.17). The SEM and FPS showed significant lower scores in the CC-ILA group during injection (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001) and extraction (p < 0.0001, p = 0.01) respectively. No children in CC-ILA group reported lip-biting after 24-h compared to 32% in IANB (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

CC-ILA provides significantly less painful injections than conventional techniques and has proved to be as effective as IANB during extraction of mandibular primary molars. An important advantage of this technique was the complete absence of any lip/cheek biting events. Trial registration The study was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT04739735 on 26th of January 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04739735 .

Does computerized anaesthesia reduce pain during local anaesthesia in paediatric patients for dental treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed whether pain and disruptive behaviour can be decreased by the use of computerized local dental anaesthesia (CDLA) in children. The literature was screened to select randomized clinical trials that compared computerized and conventional anaesthesia. The primary outcome was pain perception during anaesthesia; the secondary, disruptive behaviour. The risk of bias of individual papers and the quality of the evidence were evaluated. After search, 8389 records were found and 20 studies remained for the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. High heterogeneity was detected for both outcomes. For the pain perception, the overall analysis showed a standard mean difference of -0.78 (-1.31, -0.25) favouring CDLA; however, when only studies at low risk of bias were analysed (subgroup analysis), there was no difference between the two techniques [-0.12(-0.46, 0.22)]. For disruptive behaviour, no differences were detected for continuous [-0.26 (-0.68, 0.16)] or dichotomous data [0.81 (0.62, 1.06)]. The quality of evidence was judged as low for pain perception and very low for disruptive behaviour. It is concluded that there is no difference in the pain perception and disruptive behaviour in children subjected to computerized or conventional dental local anaesthesia. Notwithstanding, the quality of the available evidence is low.

Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Delivery of pain-free dentistry is crucial for reducing fear and anxiety, completion of treatment, and increasing acceptance of future dental treatment in children. Local anaesthetic (LA) facilitates this pain-free approach but it remains challenging. A number of interventions to help children cope with delivery of LA have been described, with no consensus on the best method to increase its acceptance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of methods for acceptance of LA in children and adolescents during dental treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019 Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 May 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 of May 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2019); and Web of Science (1900 to 24 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to 24 May 2019. There were no restrictions on language or date of publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used to increase acceptance of dental LA in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors for missing information. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 trials with 2435 randomised participants aged between 2 and 16 years. Studies were carried out between 2002 and 2019 in dental clinics in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Iran, India, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mexico, and Korea. Studies included equipment interventions (using several LA delivery devices for injection or audiovisual aids used immediately prior to or during LA delivery or both) and dentist interventions (psychological behaviour interventions delivered in advance of LA (video modelling), or immediately prior to or during delivery of LA or both (hypnosis, counter-stimulation). We judged one study to be at low risk and the rest at high risk of bias. Clinical heterogeneity of the included studies rendered it impossible to pool data into meta-analyses. None of the studies reported on our primary outcome of acceptance of LA. No studies reported on the following secondary outcomes: completion of dental treatment, successful LA/painless treatment, patient satisfaction, parent satisfaction, and adverse events. Audiovisual distraction compared to conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA with a reduction in negative behaviour when 3D video glasses where used in the audiovisual distraction group (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.50; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The wand versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain regarding the effect of the wand on pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA. Four studies reported a benefit in using the wand while the remaining studies results suggested no difference between the two methods of delivering LA (six trials, 704 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Counter-stimulation/distraction versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with children experiencing less pain when counter-stimulation was used (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 1 trial, 134 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Hypnosis versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with participants in the hypnosis group experiencing less pain (mean difference (MD) -1.79, 95% CI -3.01 to -0.57; 1 trial, 29 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons considered included pre-cooling of the injection site, the wand versus Sleeper One, the use of a camouflage syringe, use of an electrical counter-stimulation device, and video modelling acclimatisation, and had a single study each. The findings from these other comparisons were insufficient to draw any affirmative conclusions about their effectiveness, and were considered to be very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions as to the best interventions to increase acceptance of LA in children due to variation in methodology and nature/timing of outcome measures. We recommend further parallel RCTs, reported in line with the CONSORT Statement. Care should be taken when choosing outcome measures.

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.

Computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children: A review of clinical considerations

Pain control by means of local anesthesia is an intrinsic part of clinical practice in dentistry. Several studies evaluated intraligamental anesthesia using a computer-controlled anesthetic device in children. There is a need to provide a clinical guide for the use of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children. Intraligamental anesthesia using a computer-controlled anesthetic device was found to cause significantly lower pain perception scores and lower pain-related behavior than traditional techniques. This device proven to be effective in restorative and pulp treatment in children; however, its effectiveness in primary teeth extraction is controversial. It is important to withdraw recommendations necessity of future studies concerning the side effects of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children. The present study aims to review different clinical aspects of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children along with the side-effects, type of local anesthesia and postoperative pain of this technique. This study provides dentists with a clinical guide for the use of computerized intraligamental anesthesia.

Palatal Injection does not Block the Superior Alveolar Nerve Trunks: Correcting an Error Regarding the Innervation of the Maxillary Teeth

The superior alveolar nerves course lateral to the maxillary sinus and the greater palatine nerve travels through the hard palate. This difficult three-dimensional anatomy has led some dentists and oral surgeons to a critical misunderstanding in developing the anterior and middle superior alveolar (AMSA) nerve block and the palatal approach anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) nerve block. In this review, the anatomy of the posterior, middle and anterior superior alveolar nerves, greater palatine nerve, and nasopalatine nerve are revisited in order to clarify the anatomy of these blocks so that the perpetuated anatomical misunderstanding is rectified. We conclude that the AMSA and P-ASA nerve blockades, as currently described, are not based on accurate anatomy.

Pain Experience and Behavior Management in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparison between Traditional Local Anesthesia and the Wand Computerized Delivery System

Aim. To evaluate the pain experience and behavior during dental injection, using the Wand computerized delivery system versus conventional local anesthesia in children and adolescents. Methods. An observational crossover split mouth study was performed on 67 patients (aged 7 to 15 years), requiring local anesthesia for dental treatments in both sides of the dental arch. Patients received both types of injections in two separate appointments, one with the use of a Computer Delivery System (the Wand STA system) and one with the traditional syringe. The following data were recorded: pain rating; changes in heart rate; level of collaboration; patient satisfaction. The data were analyzed using ANOVA for quantitative outcomes and nonparametric analysis (Kruskal–Wallis) for qualitative parameters. Results. The use of the Wand system determined significantly lower pain ratings and lower increase of heart rate than the traditional syringe. During injection, the number of patients showing a relaxed behavior was higher with the Wand than with the traditional local anesthesia. The patient level of satisfaction was higher with the Wand compared to the conventional local anesthesia. Conclusions. The Wand system may provide a less painful injection when compared to the conventional local anesthesia and it seemed to be better tolerated with respect to a traditional syringe.

Comparison of a New Auto-controlled Injection System with Traditional Syringe for Mandibular Infiltrations in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Pain in the dental operatory can have a profound effect on the behavior of children.

Aim:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the pain perception while administering local infiltration, in children undergoing dental extractions, using a new auto-controlled injection system.

Materials and Methods:

Children in the age range of 6–10 years with teeth indicated for extraction were recruited and allocated to either Group I, computer-controlled injection system (auto system with special cartridge and compatible disposable 30-gauge, 10 mm needles), or Group II, traditional system (30-gauge, 10 mm needle and disposable traditional syringe). Local infiltration was administered and extraction performed after 3 min. The time of administration (TOA) of infiltrate was noted whereas anxiety and pain in both groups were assessed using the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Faces Scale simplified (MCDAS_(f)), pulse rate, Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) Scale.

Results:

The TOA was high in computer group, compared to the traditional system (P < 0.001***); however, anxiety and pain were significantly less in computer group as reported in MCDAS_(f), pulse rate, FPS-R, and FLACC (P < 0.001***).

Conclusions:

Computer system created a positive and comfortable experience for the child, as well as the practitioner. The possibility of using buccal infiltration instead of inferior alveolar nerve block in children below 10 years was also demonstrated.

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.

Is it the injection device or the anxiety experienced that causes pain during dental local anaesthesia?

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of anxiety and type of dental injection, a plastic syringe or an electronic computerized device, on the pain perceived by children.

DESIGN

Two dental injectors, a computerized device (Wand, Milestone Scientific, Livingston, NJ, USA) and a traditional plastic syringe, were compared. Forty-one children, aged 9-13 years, who had registered for treatment in Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey, were included in the study. Both anxious and non-anxious children were included in the study group. The Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale, Facial Image Scale, Spielberger's State Anxiety Index for Children, and heart rates were used to determine the anxiety levels. Participants were assigned to interventions by using random allocation. The first appointment was designed as an introductive familiarization session and injections were administered in the second and third sessions, with one or the other injector. The visual analogue scale was used for pain measurement after injections.

RESULTS

No significant differences in injection pain scores were observed between the Wand and traditional plastic injector. Higher levels of pre-injection anxiety were found to be related to more severe pain reports by the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety plays an important role in the pain reaction of children, and was found to be more determinative in pain perception than the injection devices preferred.