- ICH GCP
- US-Register für klinische Studien
- Klinische Studie NCT07585812
Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System in Pediatric Dental Anesthesia
Assessing the Efficacy of the Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System for Managing Pain and Anxiety During Pediatric Dental Injections: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
This randomized split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of the Comfort-in needle-free injection system compared with conventional dental injection for local anesthesia during pulpotomy treatment in children.
Sixty children aged 5 to 8 years who required bilateral pulpotomy of primary first molars were included. Each participant received both anesthesia techniques in separate treatment sessions with an interval of at least one week. The order of anesthesia techniques was randomized: 30 children received conventional dental injection in the first session and Comfort-in needle-free injection in the second session, while the remaining 30 children received the interventions in the reverse order.
Pain perception during anesthesia administration and pulpotomy was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale and the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Physiological parameters, including blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation, were recorded before anesthesia, after anesthesia, and after pulpotomy. The amount of anesthetic solution used, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and patient preference were also recorded.
The study was designed to determine whether the Comfort-in needle-free injection system could provide effective local anesthesia for pediatric pulpotomy while reducing injection-related pain, physiological stress responses, anesthetic volume, duration of postoperative numbness, and postoperative complications compared with conventional dental injection.
Studienübersicht
Status
Bedingungen
Intervention / Behandlung
Detaillierte Beschreibung
Local anesthesia administration is one of the major sources of pain, fear, and anxiety in pediatric dental patients. Conventional dental injections may cause discomfort due to needle penetration, tissue pressure, and deposition of anesthetic solution. These experiences may negatively affect child cooperation and future dental attendance. Needle-free injection systems have been developed as an alternative method to deliver local anesthetic solution without needle penetration.
This randomized split-mouth clinical trial compared the Comfort-in needle-free injection system with conventional dental injection in children requiring pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars. The split-mouth design was used to allow each child to serve as his or her own control, thereby reducing interindividual variability in pain perception and physiological responses.
A total of 60 children aged 5 to 8 years were included. All participants required pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars located in either the maxilla or mandible. Eligible children had no previous experience with local anesthesia or dental treatment, had no systemic disease or mental disability, had not used medications that could affect pain perception, and demonstrated positive or definitely positive behavior according to the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale during the initial examination.
Each child received both anesthesia techniques in two separate clinical sessions with a minimum interval of one week. In one session, conventional local anesthesia was administered using a dental injector after topical anesthetic application. In the other session, local anesthesia was administered using the Comfort-in needle-free injection system after topical anesthetic application. The sequence of interventions was randomized. Thirty children received conventional injection first and Comfort-in needle-free injection second; the remaining 30 children received Comfort-in needle-free injection first and conventional injection second.
In the conventional injection session, the injection site was dried and topical anesthetic spray was applied for 60 seconds. Local anesthetic solution containing articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was then administered using a 27-gauge dental injector. In the Comfort-in session, the injection site was similarly dried and topical anesthetic spray was applied for 60 seconds. Articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using the Comfort-in needle-free injection system.
Pain during anesthesia administration and pulpotomy was assessed using two validated pediatric pain assessment tools: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale and the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Physiological parameters, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation, were recorded before anesthesia, after anesthesia, and after pulpotomy. The total amount of anesthetic solution used, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and the child's preference for anesthesia technique were also recorded.
The primary aim of the study was to compare pain perception during local anesthesia administration between the Comfort-in needle-free injection system and conventional dental injection. Secondary aims included comparing anesthetic efficacy during pulpotomy, physiological responses, amount of anesthetic solution required, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and patient preference between the two anesthesia techniques.
Studientyp
Einschreibung (Tatsächlich)
Phase
- Unzutreffend
Kontakte und Standorte
Studienorte
-
-
Rize Province
-
Rize, Rize Province, Türkei (türkiye), 53000
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan University
-
-
Teilnahmekriterien
Zulassungskriterien
Studienberechtigtes Alter
- Kind
Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige
Beschreibung
Inclusion Criteria:
- Children aged 5 to 8 years.
- Children requiring pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars located in either the maxilla or mandible.
- Children with no previous experience of local anesthesia or dental treatment.
- Children who showed positive or definitely positive behavior according to the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale during the initial examination.
- Children with no systemic disease.
- Children with no mental or cognitive disability.
- Children who had not used medications that could affect pain perception, including antibiotics or analgesics.
- Written informed consent obtained from the parents or legal guardians.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Previous dental treatment experience.
- Previous local anesthesia experience.
- Uncooperative behavior during the initial examination.
- Presence of systemic disease.
- Presence of mental or cognitive disability.
- Antibiotic use within the last month.
- Analgesic use within the last 24 hours.
- Use of any medication that could influence pain perception.
- Refusal of parental or legal guardian consent.
Studienplan
Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?
Designdetails
- Hauptzweck: Behandlung
- Zuteilung: Zufällig
- Interventionsmodell: Crossover-Aufgabe
- Maskierung: Keine (Offenes Etikett)
Waffen und Interventionen
Teilnehmergruppe / Arm |
Intervention / Behandlung |
|---|---|
|
Aktiver Komparator: Conventional Dental Injection First, Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection Second
Participants in this arm received conventional dental injection in the first treatment session and Comfort-in needle-free injection in the second treatment session.
The two sessions were performed on contralateral primary first molars requiring pulpotomy, with a minimum interval of one week between sessions.
|
The Comfort-in needle-free injection system was used to administer local anesthetic solution without needle penetration.
After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using the Comfort-in system before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.
Conventional local anesthesia was administered using a dental injector.
After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using a 27-gauge dental injector before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.
|
|
Experimental: Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection First, Conventional Dental Injection Second
Participants in this arm received Comfort-in needle-free injection in the first treatment session and conventional dental injection in the second treatment session.
The two sessions were performed on contralateral primary first molars requiring pulpotomy, with a minimum interval of one week between sessions.
|
The Comfort-in needle-free injection system was used to administer local anesthetic solution without needle penetration.
After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using the Comfort-in system before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.
Conventional local anesthesia was administered using a dental injector.
After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using a 27-gauge dental injector before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.
|
Was misst die Studie?
Primäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Pain during local anesthesia administration assessed by the FLACC scale
Zeitfenster: Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration; visits were separated by at least 1 week.
|
Pain-related behavior during local anesthesia administration was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale.
The FLACC scale evaluates five behavioral categories: face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability.
The total score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain.
|
Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration; visits were separated by at least 1 week.
|
Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Pain during local anesthesia and pulpotomy assessed by the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale
Zeitfenster: Immediately after local anesthesia administration and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
Self-reported pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale.
Scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain.
Pain scores were recorded after local anesthesia administration and after pulpotomy treatment for both anesthesia techniques.
|
Immediately after local anesthesia administration and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
|
Pain during pulpotomy procedure steps assessed by the FLACC scale
Zeitfenster: Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during prespecified pulpotomy procedure steps.
|
Pain-related behavior during pulpotomy was assessed using the FLACC scale at different procedural steps, including high-speed instrumentation, low-speed instrumentation, pulp removal, matrix-wedge placement, and restoration.
The total FLACC score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain.
|
Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during prespecified pulpotomy procedure steps.
|
|
Systolic blood pressure
Zeitfenster: Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
Systolic blood pressure was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
|
Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
|
Diastolic blood pressure
Zeitfenster: Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
Diastolic blood pressure was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
|
Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
|
Pulse rate
Zeitfenster: Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
Pulse rate was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
|
Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
|
Oxygen saturation
Zeitfenster: Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
Oxygen saturation was recorded as a physiological parameter during the dental treatment session.
|
Immediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment session
|
|
Total amount of anesthetic solution used
Zeitfenster: Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration.
|
The total volume of local anesthetic solution used for each anesthesia technique was recorded in milliliters.
|
Periprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration.
|
|
Duration of anesthetic effect
Zeitfenster: Immediately after local anesthesia administration in each treatment session
|
The duration of anesthetic effect after local anesthesia administration was recorded in hours for each anesthesia technique.
|
Immediately after local anesthesia administration in each treatment session
|
|
Postoperative complications after local anesthesia
Zeitfenster: Up to 24 hours after Visit 1 and Visit 2
|
Postoperative complications after local anesthesia were recorded for each anesthesia technique.
Complications included lip biting, swelling, hematoma, and pain.
|
Up to 24 hours after Visit 1 and Visit 2
|
|
Number of Participants Preferring Each Anesthesia Technique Assessed by a Direct Preference Question
Zeitfenster: At completion of Visit 2
|
After experiencing both anesthesia techniques, participants were asked which technique they preferred: conventional dental injection or Comfort-in needle-free injection.
Data were reported as the number of participants preferring each anesthesia technique.
|
At completion of Visit 2
|
Mitarbeiter und Ermittler
Sponsor
Ermittler
- Hauptermittler: Sema Aydinoglu, DDS, PhD, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University
Publikationen und hilfreiche Links
Allgemeine Veröffentlichungen
- Makade CS, Shenoi PR, Gunwal MK. Comparison of acceptance, preference and efficacy between pressure anesthesia and classical needle infiltration anesthesia for dental restorative procedures in adult patients. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):169-74. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.128063.
- Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A, Kotsanos N. Comparison of acceptance, preference, and efficacy between jet injection INJEX and local infiltration anesthesia in 6 to 11 year old dental patients. Anesth Prog. 2010 Spring;57(1):3-12. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3.
- Oliveira ACA, Amorim KS, Nascimento Junior EMD, Duarte ACB, Groppo FC, Takeshita WM, Souza LMA. Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Jan 14;27:e20180195. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195.
- Sermet Elbay U, Elbay M, Yildirim S, Kaya E, Kaya C, Ugurluel C, BaydemIr C. Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;26(5):336-45. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12204. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
- Ocak H, Akkoyun EF, Colpak HA, Demetoglu U, Yucesoy T, Kilic E, Alkan A. Is the jet injection effective for teeth extraction? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Feb;121(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.05.001. Epub 2019 May 8.
- Al-Melh MA, Andersson L. Comparison of topical anesthetics (EMLA/Oraqix vs. benzocaine) on pain experienced during palatal needle injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 May;103(5):e16-20. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.033. Epub 2007 Feb 27.
- Arslan I, Aydinoglu S, Karan NB. Can lavender oil inhalation help to overcome dental anxiety and pain in children? A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2020 Jun;179(6):985-992. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03595-7. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
- Altan H, Belevcikli M, Cosgun A, Demir O. Comparative evaluation of pain perception with a new needle-free system and dental needle method in children: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Dec 1;21(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12871-021-01524-1.
- Yildirim S, Tokuc M, Aydin MN. The effect of pre-anesthesia with a needle-free system versus topical anesthesia on injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Dec;24(12):4355-4361. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03301-9. Epub 2020 May 7.
- Theocharidou A, Arhakis A, Kotsanos N, Arapostathis K. Jet or conventional local anaesthesia? A randomized controlled split mouth study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Dec;25(12):6813-6819. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03968-8. Epub 2021 Apr 28.
- Altan H, Almas B. Clinical evaluation of different types of injection systems and comparison of pain acceptance in palatal anesthesia in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled split-mouth study. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Jun;25(3):191-199. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.191. Epub 2025 May 30.
- Elbay M, Sermet Elbay U, Yildirim S, Ugurluel C, Kaya C, Baydemir C. Comparison of injection pain caused by the DentalVibe Injection System versus a traditional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in paediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015 Jun;16(2):123-8.
- Naik SS, Kodical SR, Joshi A, Mali S, Shah R, Shetiya N. Efficacy and Pain Perception of a Comfort-in for Palatal Anesthesia in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2026 Feb;19(2):228-233. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3418. Epub 2026 Feb 12.
- Kanaa MD, Meechan JG, Corbett IP, Whitworth JM. Speed of injection influences efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a double-blind randomized controlled trial in volunteers. J Endod. 2006 Oct;32(10):919-23. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.04.004. Epub 2006 Jul 7.
- Friedman MJ, Hochman MN. The AMSA injection: a new concept for local anesthesia of maxillary teeth using a computer-controlled injection system. Quintessence Int. 1998 May;29(5):297-303.
- Amrollahi N, Rastghalam N, Faghihian R. EFFECT OF PRE-COOLING ON PAIN ASSOCIATED WITH DENTAL INJECTIONS IN CHILDREN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2021 Sep;21(3):101588. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101588. Epub 2021 Jun 4.
- Bilsin E, Gungormus Z, Gungormus M. The Efficacy of External Cooling and Vibration on Decreasing the Pain of Local Anesthesia Injections During Dental Treatment in Children: A Randomized Controlled Study. J Perianesth Nurs. 2020 Feb;35(1):44-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2019.06.007. Epub 2019 Sep 26.
Studienaufzeichnungsdaten
Haupttermine studieren
Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)
Primärer Abschluss (Tatsächlich)
Studienabschluss (Tatsächlich)
Studienanmeldedaten
Zuerst eingereicht
Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat
Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)
Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen
Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)
Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt
Zuletzt verifiziert
Mehr Informationen
Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie
Schlüsselwörter
Zusätzliche relevante MeSH-Bedingungen
Andere Studien-ID-Nummern
- RTEU_2019/05
Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)
Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?
Beschreibung des IPD-Plans
Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt
Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .