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

Rodaina H Helmy, Sarah I Zeitoun, Laila M El-Habashy, Rodaina H Helmy, Sarah I Zeitoun, Laila M El-Habashy

Abstract

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://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04739735 .

Keywords: Children; Computer-controlled; Intraligamentary; Local anaesthesia; Single tooth anesthesia.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Administration of computer controlled Intraligamentary anaesthesia in a multi-rooted tooth. Left: first insertion on the disto-lingual line angle of the tooth. Right: second insertion on the mesio-lingual line angle of the tooth
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Faces pain scale (FPS) modified from the Maunuksela et al. [43] scale. A satisfaction; B indifference; and C dissatisfaction
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
CONSORT flow chart study design

References

    1. Ship II, White CL. Physiologic response to dental stress. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 1960;13:368–376. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(60)90184-5.
    1. Vika M, Skaret E, Raadal M, Öst LG, Kvale G. Fear of blood, injury, and injections, and its relationship to dental anxiety and probability of avoiding dental treatment among 18-year-olds in Norway. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:163–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00904.x.
    1. Grace E, Barnes D, Reid B, Flores M, George D. Computerized local dental anesthetic systems: patient and dentist satisfaction. J Dent. 2003;31:9–12. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00130-6.
    1. Versloot J, Veerkamp J, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J. 2008;205:E2. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.414.
    1. Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. 7. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020.
    1. Chompret L. Anesthésie par injections intraligamenteuses. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1920;6:309–312.
    1. Blanton PL, Jeske AH. Dental local anesthetics: alternative delivery methods. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134:228–234. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0140.
    1. Edwards R, Head T. A clinical trial of intraligamentary anesthesia. J Dent Res. 1989;68:1210–1213. doi: 10.1177/00220345890680071301.
    1. Berlin J, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99:361–366. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.11.009.
    1. Nusstein J, Berlin J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver JM. Comparison of injection pain, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Anesth Prog. 2004;51:126.
    1. Hupp JR. Principles of routine exodontia. In: Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery-e-book, 6th ed. Elsevier; 2013.
    1. Gunasekaran S, Babu G, Vijayan V. Local anaesthesia in pediatric dentistry: an overview. J Multidiscip Dent Res. 2020;6:16–21.
    1. Burtscher D, Dalla TD. Intraligamentary anesthesia: a brief review of an underestimated anesthetic technique. Oral Health Care. 2019;4:1–3. doi: 10.15761/OHC.1000177.
    1. Amoudi NA, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Assessment of the anesthetic effectiveness of anterior and middle superior alveolar injection using a computerized device versus traditional technique in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;33:97–102. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.33.2.d666m2l43334274p.
    1. Kaufman E, Weinstein P, Milgrom P. Difficulties in achieving local anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 1939;1984(108):205–208.
    1. Kim S. Ligamental injection: a physiological explantation of its efficacy. J Endod. 1986;12:486–491. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(86)80204-7.
    1. Wand-STA. . au/Documents/Brochures/STA%20WAND%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.
    1. Mittal M, Chopra R, Kumar A, Srivastava D. Comparison of pain perception using conventional versus computer-controlled intraligamentary local anesthetic injection for extraction of primary molars. Anesth Prog. 2019;66:69–76. doi: 10.2344/anpr-66-01-09.
    1. Kumar S. Newer delivery systems for local anesthesia in dentistry. J Pharm Sci Res. 2015;7:252–255.
    1. Kwak EJ, Pang NS, Cho JH, Jung BY, Kim KD, Park W. Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery for painless anesthesia: a literature review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2016;16:81–88. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2016.16.2.81.
    1. Kämmerer P, Schiegnitz E, Von Haussen T, Shabazfar N, Kämmerer P, Willershausen B, et al. Clinical efficacy of a computerised device (STA™) and a pressure syringe (VarioJect INTRA™) for intraligamentary anaesthesia. Eur J Dent Educ. 2015;19:16–22. doi: 10.1111/eje.12096.
    1. Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 1999;21:421–424.
    1. Libonati A, Nardi R, Gallusi G, Angotti V, Caruso S, Coniglione F, et al. Pain and anxiety associated with computer-controlled local anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-over studies. 2018.
    1. Baghlaf K, Elashiry E, Alamoudi N. Computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children: a review of clinical considerations. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018;18:197–204. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.4.197.
    1. Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM. The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2016;47:217–224.
    1. Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM. The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2015;46.
    1. Garret-Bernardin A, Cantile T, D’Antò V, Galanakis A, Fauxpoint G, Ferrazzano GF, et al. Pain experience and behavior management in pediatric dentistry: a comparison between traditional local anesthesia and the wand computerized delivery system. Pain Res Manag. 2017 doi: 10.1155/2017/7941238.
    1. Giannetti L, Forabosco E, Spinas E, Re D. Single tooth anaesthesia: a new approach to the paediatric patient. A clinical experimental study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018;19:40–43.
    1. Kämmerer P, Adubae A, Buttchereit I, Thiem D, Daubländer M, Frerich B. Prospective clinical study comparing intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of posterior mandibular teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:1469–1475. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2248-2.
    1. Kumar TY, John JB, Asokan S, Priya PG, Punithavathy R, Praburajan V. Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015;33:223. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.160394.
    1. Patini R, Staderini E, Cantiani M, Camodeca A, Guglielmi F, Gallenzi P. Dental anaesthesia for children - effects of a computer-controlled delivery system on pain and heart rate: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:744–749. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.006.
    1. Perugia P, Bartolino M, Docimo R. Comparison of single tooth anaesthesia by computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system (C-CLADS) with a supraperiosteal traditional syringe injection in paediatric dentistry. 2017.
    1. Thoppe-Dhamodhara YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P. Cartridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: Pain related behaviour over two sequential visits: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7:e513–e518. doi: 10.4317/jced.52542.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux P, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10:28–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001.
    1. Tekin U, Ersin N, Oncag O, Bent B, Menderes M, Kocanali B. Comparison of inferior alveolar nerve block and intraligamentary anesthesia on the discomfort of children. J Int Dent Med Res. 2012;5:143–148.
    1. Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical statistics at a glance. 3. West Sussex: Wiley; 2009.
    1. Power and sample size calculator. .
    1. Hughes C. Reasons for dental extractions in children. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23:109–112.
    1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA, Jones JE. Oral surgery for the pediatric patient. In: McDonald and Avery dentistry for the child and adolescent. Elsevier Inc.; 2011. p. 629.
    1. Mathur J, Diwanji A, Sarvaiya B, Sharma D. Identifying dental anxiety in children's drawings and correlating it with Frankl's behavior rating scale. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;10:24–28. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1401.
    1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA, Jones JE. Local anesthesia and pain control for the child and adolescent. In: McDonald and Avery dentistry for the child and adolescent. Elsevier Inc.; 2011. p. 241–52.
    1. Affairs AAoPDCoC. Guideline on pediatric oral surgery. Pediatr Dent. 2006;27:158–64.
    1. Maunuksela EL, Olkkola KT, Korpela R. Measurement of pain in children with self-reporting and behavioral assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;42:137–141. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1987.123.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Smolarek PC, da Silva LS, Martins PRD, Hartman KDC, Bortoluzzi MC, Chibinski ACR. Evaluation of pain, disruptive behaviour and anxiety in children aging 5–8 years old undergoing different modalities of local anaesthetic injection for dental treatment: a randomised clinical trial. Acta Odontol Scand. 2020;78:445–453. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2020.1757752.
    1. Ram D, Kassirer J. Assessment of a palatal approach-anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) nerve block with the Wand® in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:348–351.
    1. Benaim C, Froger J, Cazottes C, Gueben D, Porte M, Desnuelle C, et al. Use of the faces pain scale by left and right hemispheric stroke patients. Pain. 2007;128:52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.029.
    1. Loggia ML, Juneau M, Bushnell MC. Autonomic responses to heat pain: heart rate, skin conductance, and their relation to verbal ratings and stimulus intensity. PAIN®. 2011;152:592–8.
    1. Moore PA, Cuddy MA, Cooke MR, Sokolowski CJ. Periodontal ligament and intraosseous anesthetic injection techniques: alternatives to mandibular nerve blocks. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142:13S. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0342.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera