Comparative evaluation of pain perception with a new needle-free system and dental needle method in children: a randomized clinical trial

Halenur Altan, Melek Belevcikli, Alem Coşgun, Osman Demir, Halenur Altan, Melek Belevcikli, Alem Coşgun, Osman Demir

Abstract

Background: Pain control during dental procedures is one of the most important topics related to behavior management in children. This study aims to compare the pain perception associated with a needle-free system (Comfort-In™) and the dental needle method during filling and pulpotomy treatments in children.

Methods: The study included teeth that required treatment (pulpotomy or filling treatment) in 56 patients aged 4 to 11 years with no systemic problems or history of allergy. Patients were randomly divided into the needle-free system group (filling treatment, n = 13; pulpotomy, n = 15) and dental needle method group (filling treatment, n = 14; pulpotomy, n = 14). For pulpotomy and filling treatment performed with 0.3 mL anesthesia, the active ingredient of which is 2% lidocaine and 1/80000 epinephrine. The patients' behavior before the procedure was evaluated by a pediatric dentist using the Frankl Behavior Scale. The pain intensity was assessed Immediately after injection (induction), during treatment (treatment), and at the end of the treatment (post treatment) by the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale.

Results: The median (IQR-InterQuartile Range) induction pain value was 6[3-8] and 2[0-4] in dental needle method and needle-free system respectively, p < 0.001). In filling and pulpotomy treatment group, no difference between the needle and needle-free group for treatment and post-treatment pain values.

Conclusions: For pulpotomy and filling treatment, needle-free system performed with 0.3 mL anesthesia was found as effective as infiltrative anesthesia with a dental needle method.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04653974 . Registered 4 December 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Children; Dental needle; Needle-free injection system; Pain; Pulpotomy.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Needle-free system (Comfort-In™) on maxilla. b Needle-free system (Comfort-In™) on mandible
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study flow chart

References

    1. Milgrom P, Coldwell S, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay D. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:756–762. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0301.
    1. Jenkins K., II Needle phobia: a psychological perspective. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:4–6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu013.
    1. McMurtry CM, Noel M, Taddio A, Antony MM, Asmundson GJ, Riddell RP, et al. Interventions for individuals with high levels of needle fear: systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Clin J Pain. 2015;31:109–123. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000273.
    1. Ocak H, Akkoyun EF, Çolpak HA, Demetoğlu U, Yücesoy T, Kılıç E. Is the jet injection effective for teeth extraction? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020.
    1. Deepak V, Challa RR, Kamatham R, Nuvvula S. Comparison of a new auto-controlled injection system with traditional syringe for mandibular infiltrations in children: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11:431–438. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.194535.
    1. San Chong B, Miller J, Sidhu S. Alternative local anaesthetic delivery systems, devices and aids designed to minimise painful injections—a review. Endod Pract Today. 2014;8:7–22.
    1. Aşıcı N, Doğan C, Çınar Ç, Alaçam A. The evaluation of two different syringe type on the pain level, behaviour type and the psychological acceptance of the children during local infiltration anesthesia. Acta Odontol Turc. 2004;21:77–81.
    1. Ogle OE, Mahjoubi G. Advances in local anesthesia in dentistry. Dental Clinics. 2011;55:481–499. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.007.
    1. Munshi A, Hegde A, Bashir N. Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference using the needle-less jet syringe in pediatric dental practice. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;25:131–136. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.25.2.q6426p853266q575.
    1. Özel A, Çetin H. Effects of vibrating tourniquet application on the pain felt for blood drawing in pediatric patients. Agri. 2020;32:25–30. doi: 10.14744/agri.2019.04900.
    1. Yıldırım S, Tokuç M, Aydın 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;24:4355–4361. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03301-9.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G* power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
    1. Klingberg G, Broberg A. Temperament and child dental fear. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20:237–243.
    1. Klingberg G, Berggren U, Carlsson SG, Noren JG. Child dental fear: cause-related factors and clinical effects. Eur J Oral Sci. 1995;103:405–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1995.tb01865.x.
    1. Farooq S, Goswami M, Nangia T, Saxena A, Rahman B, Sharan S. Sensory response in the behaviour of a child in the dental environment to the various sensory stimuli routinely evoked at home. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2019;7:150–155. doi: 10.21276/jamdsr.
    1. Ben-Sasson A, Carter AS, Briggs-Gowan MJ. Sensory over-responsivity in elementary school: prevalence and social-emotional correlates. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37:705–716. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9295-8.
    1. 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;17:169–174. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.128063.
    1. 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;57:3–12. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3.
    1. Oliveira ACA, Amorim KS, Nascimento EM, Jr, Duarte ACB, Groppo FC, Takeshita WM, et al. Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:1–7. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195.
    1. Barolet D, Benohanian A. Current trends in needle-free jet injection: an update. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2018;11:231–238. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S162724.
    1. Theocharidou A, Arhakis A, Kotsanos N, Arapostathis K. Jet or conventional local anaesthesia? A randomized controlled split mouth study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021:1–7. 10.1007/s00784-021-03968-8.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다