PDL Anesthesia Versus Local Infiltration (PDL)

Periodontal Ligament Injection Versus Routine Local Infiltration, for the Non-surgical Single Posterior Maxillary Permanent Tooth Extraction: Comparative Double Blinded Randomized Clinical Study

The literature concerning the success and pain scores of PDL injection technique compared with other techniques remains controversial; whereas some studies found no significant difference in pain scores between local infiltration and PDL injection, other older studies found that pain during administration of PDL injection was described by the majority of patients either as greater than local infiltration6, or as negligible or as a less painful injection compared with other injection techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of and patients' subjective responses to the PDL injection technique as compared to the traditional infiltration injection, for the non-surgical extraction of one posterior maxillary permanent tooth.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Anesthesia, Local
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: PDL anesthesia versus local infiltration

Detailed Description

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of and patients' subjective responses to the periodontal ligament (PDL) anesthetic injection as compared to the traditional infiltration injection, for the non-surgical extraction of one posterior maxillary permanent tooth. Methods: All patients scheduled for non-surgical symmetrical maxillary posterior permanent teeth extraction in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) at the University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan, over a-seven-month period, were invited to participate in this prospective randomized double blinded, split mouth study. Every patient received the recommended volumes of 2% lidocaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine for PDL injection on the experimental side, and for local infiltration on the control side. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) were used to describe the pain felt during injection and extraction, respectively. Statistical significance was based on probability values of <0.05 and measured using Chi-Square and Student-t tests, and Nonparametric Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 55
• Phase: Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 10 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

The inclusion criteria were: patients who were fit for surgery under LA (classified by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) as ASA I-ASA III); patients exhibiting full understanding of given oral instructions; and bilateral symmetrical posterior maxillary permanent teeth referred for non-surgical extractions under LA.

Exclusion Criteria:

Exclusion criteria were: the presence of acute dento-alveoalr infection; patients requiring conscious sedation or general anesthesia; patients unwilling to participate in the study; patients with ASA greater than III; patients on anti-inflammatory or recreational drugs; and patients requiring more than two additional injections in one or both sides for incomplete anesthesia.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Quadruple

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: primary periodontal ligament anesthesia; PDL anesthesia versus local infiltration	Procedure: PDL anesthesia versus local infiltration; Every patient received the recommended volumes of 2% lidocaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine for PDL injection on the experimental side, and for local infiltration on the control side. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to describe the pain felt during injection.
Active Comparator: local infiltration; PDL anesthesia versus local infiltration	Procedure: PDL anesthesia versus local infiltration; Every patient received the recommended volumes of 2% lidocaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine for PDL injection on the experimental side, and for local infiltration on the control side. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to describe the pain felt during injection.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for injections pain	The VAS composed of a 100-mm line and allowed the patient to score the pain experienced during injections as low moderate and high	5 minutes

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Jordan
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Mohammad H Al-Shayyab, Fellowship, The university of Jordan

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): July 6, 2015
• Primary Completion (Actual): January 31, 2016
• Study Completion (Actual): January 31, 2016

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 28, 2017
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 31, 2017
• First Posted (Actual): June 2, 2017

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): June 5, 2017
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 1, 2017
• Last Verified: May 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: PDL Injection; Infiltration; Anesthesia; Extraction
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Physiological Effects of Drugs; Central Nervous System Depressants; Anesthetics
• Other Study ID Numbers: RF: 10/2015/15791

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: Undecided

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No