Split-mouth and parallel-arm trials to compare pain with intraosseous anaesthesia delivered by the computerised Quicksleeper system and conventional infiltration anaesthesia in paediatric oral healthcare: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Michèle Muller-Bolla, Jean-Louis Sixou, Frédéric Courson, Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Michèle Muller-Bolla, Jean-Louis Sixou, Frédéric Courson

Abstract

Introduction: Local anaesthesia is commonly used in paediatric oral healthcare. Infiltration anaesthesia is the most frequently used, but recent developments in anaesthesia techniques have introduced an alternative: intraosseous anaesthesia. We propose to perform a split-mouth and parallel-arm multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the pain caused by the insertion of the needle for the injection of conventional infiltration anaesthesia, and intraosseous anaesthesia by the computerised QuickSleeper system, in children and adolescents.

Methods and analysis: Inclusion criteria are patients 7-15 years old with at least 2 first permanent molars belonging to the same dental arch (for the split-mouth RCT) or with a first permanent molar (for the parallel-arm RCT) requiring conservative or endodontic treatment limited to pulpotomy. The setting of this study is the Department of Paediatric Dentistry at 3 University dental hospitals in France. The primary outcome measure will be pain reported by the patient on a visual analogue scale concerning the insertion of the needle and the injection/infiltration. Secondary outcomes are latency, need for additional anaesthesia during the treatment and pain felt during the treatment. We will use a computer-generated permuted-block randomisation sequence for allocation to anaesthesia groups. The random sequences will be stratified by centre (and by dental arch for the parallel-arm RCT). Only participants will be blinded to group assignment. Data will be analysed by the intent-to-treat principle. In all, 160 patients will be included (30 in the split-mouth RCT, 130 in the parallel-arm RCT).

Ethics and dissemination: This protocol has been approved by the French ethics committee for the protection of people (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Ile de France I) and will be conducted in full accordance with accepted ethical principles. Findings will be reported in scientific publications and at research conferences, and in project summary papers for participants.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02084433.

Keywords: ORAL MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

References

    1. Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A et al. . Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent 2009;19:360–6. 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00983.x
    1. Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Oltra-Moscardo MJ et al. . Comparative study between manual injection intraosseous anaesthesia and conventional oral anaesthesia. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e233–5. 10.4317/medoral.17456
    1. Sixou JL, Barbosa-Rogier ME. Efficacy of intraosseous injections of anesthetic in children and adolescents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:173–8. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.004
    1. Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J et al. . Intraosseous anaesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anaesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e426–9. 10.4317/medoral.17543
    1. Lygidakis NA. Treatment modalities in children with teeth affected by molar-incisor enamel hypomineralisation (MIH): a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11:65–74. 10.1007/BF03262715
    1. Lygidakis NA, Wong F, Jalevik B et al. . Best clinical practice guidance for clinicians dealing with children presenting with Molar-Incisor-Hypomineralisation (MIH): an EAPD Policy Document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11:75–81. 10.1007/BF03262716
    1. Antczak-Bouckoms AA, Tulloch JF, Berkey CS. Split-mouth and cross-over designs in dental research. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17(7 Pt 1):446–53. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb02343.x
    1. Hujoel PP, DeRouen TA. Validity issues in split-mouth trials. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19(9 Pt 1):625–7. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1992.tb01709.x
    1. Hujoel PP, Loesche WJ. Efficiency of split-mouth designs. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:722–8. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01060.x
    1. Pandis N, Walsh T, Polychronopoulou A et al. . Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:783–9. 10.1093/ejo/cjs108
    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159–62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1
    1. Ramfjord SP, Nissle RR, Shick RA et al. . Subgingival curettage versus surgical elimination of periodontal pockets. J Periodontol 1968;39:167–75. 10.1902/jop.1968.39.3.167
    1. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JP et al. . Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:140–9. 10.1093/ije/31.1.140
    1. Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I et al. . The design and analysis of split-mouth studies: what statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med 2009;28:3470–82. 10.1002/sim.3634
    1. Smail-Faugeron V, Fron-Chabouis H, Courson F et al. . Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:64 10.1186/1471-2288-14-64
    1. Dental Hi Tec. The keys to success with Quicksleeper. User manual and clinical guide. Cholet, France.
    1. Miro J, Castarlenas E, Huguet A. Evidence for the use of a numerical rating scale to assess the intensity of pediatric pain. Eur J Pain 2009;13:1089–95. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.07.002
    1. Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA et al. . The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain 2001;93:173–83. 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00314-1
    1. von Baeyer CL, Spagrud LJ, McCormick JC et al. . Three new datasets supporting use of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) for children's self-reports of pain intensity. Pain 2009;143:223–7. 10.1016/j.pain.2009.03.002
    1. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J et al. . Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011;342:d40 10.1136/bmj.d40
    1. No authors listed]. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med 1999;18:1905–42.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:726–32. 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG et al. . Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295–309. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D et al. . CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008;371:281–3. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61835-2
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG et al. . SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. Dryad Digital Repository. 2012. Available from

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere