Comparison of computer controlled local anesthetic delivery and traditional injection regarding disruptive behaviour, pain, anxiety and biochemical parameters: a randomized controlled trial
1Department of Pedodontics, Gaziantep University, Faculty of Dentistry, 27560 Gaziantep, Turkey
2Department of Pedodontics, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Faculty of Dentistry, 07400 Antalya, Turkey
Submitted: 21 April 2023 Accepted: 07 June 2023
Online publish date: 16 August 2023
The study herein evaluated the effects of infiltrative anesthesia administered via different ways. Resultantly, the pain and anxiety were monitored using psychometric, physiological and biochemical methods. Sixty children aged 7–11 years (8.73 ± 1.38) were included in the study. They were divided into 2 groups (n = 30): Traditional injection (control group), and computer controlled local analgesic delivery (CCLAD)(study group). Pulse, oxygen saturation (SpO2), and salivary cortisol levels were recorded, and the scales data (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Wong-Baker Faces Rating Pain Scale (WBS), Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) and Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability Behavioral Pain Assessment Scale (FLACC)) were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed. Age and gender had not much impact on the measured parameters (p > 0.05). SpO2 values in both groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Pulse, VAS, WBS, MCDAS, FLACC and salivary cortisol values were increased after the anesthesia in control group (p < 0.05). WBS, MCDAS, FLACC and salivary cortisol values were decreased after the anesthesia in study group compared to the control (p < 0.05). It was inferred that computer controlled local analgesic delivery system could be preferred in pediatric patients because of reduced pain and anxiety.
Anxiety; Dental anesthesia; Pain; Pediatric dentistry
Özge ANIL,Gül KESKIN. Comparison of computer controlled local anesthetic delivery and traditional injection regarding disruptive behaviour, pain, anxiety and biochemical parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023.doi:10.22514/jocpd.2023.046.
 Strøm K, Skaare AB, Willumsen T. Dental anxiety in 18-year-old Norwegians in 1996 and 2016. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2020; 78: 13–19.
 Nermo H, Willumsen T, Johnsen JK. Prevalence of dental anxiety and associations with oral health, psychological distress, avoidance and anticipated pain in adolescence: a cross-sectional study based on the Tromsø study, fit futures. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2019; 77: 126–134.
 Topaloğlu AA, Çoğulu D, Atı̇ lla E, Ergı̇ n E. Comparison of computerised anesthesia delivery system and conventional syringe injection in children during the treatment of primary teeth. Aydın Dental Journal. 2018; 4: 1-8.(In Turkish)
 Arapostathis KN, Sixou J. Local anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. Pediatric Dentistry. 2022; 18: 111–129.
 Mittal M, Kumar A, Srivastava D, Sharma P, Sharma S. Pain perception: computerized versus traditional local anesthesia in pediatric patients. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 39: 470–474.
 Thilak N, Hegde S, Bhat SS, Bhat V, Rajasekaran S, Mumtaz M. Delivery systems of local anesthetics in dentistry: an update. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences. 2020; 4: 23–27.
 Ainscough SL, Windsor L, Tahmassebi JF. A review of the effect of music on dental anxiety in children. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2019; 20: 23–26.
 Queiroz AM, Carvalho AB, Censi LL, Cardoso CL, Leite-Panissi CR, Silva RABD, et al. Stress and anxiety in children after the use of computerized dental anesthesia. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2015; 26: 303–307.
 Yahyaoğlu Ö, Baygın Ö. Evaluation of dental anxiety and fear in pediatric dentistry. Journal of Dental Faculty of Atatürk University. 2018; 28: 599–609. (In Turkish)
 Dwan K, Li T, Altman DG, Elbourne D. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials. The BMJ. 2019; 366: l4378.
 Palaz ZH, Palaz E, Nese A. The effect of 3D video glasses on pain and anxiety during primary molar teeth extraction in children. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2020; 37: 71–77. (In Turkish)
 Çiftçi V, Kocaarslan E. Acceptability of lasers compared to rotary instruments used for caries removal in pediatric patients: A case control study. Turkiye Klin J Dent Sci. 2022; 28: 582–590. (In Turkish)
 Erfanparast L, Rahbar M, Pourkazemi M, Vatandoust M, Balar S, Vafaei A. Comparison of effects exerted by 4% articaine buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block on pain perception and behavioral feedback of children during pulp treatment of mandibular second primary molars. Maedica. 2020; 15: 477–483.
 Yılmaz Dö. Effect of parental dental anxiety and prediction on child’s dental anxiety. Current Research in Dental Sciences. 2022; 32: 219–225. (In Turkish)
 Uçar G. Effects of low level laser therapy on injection pain and anesthesia effifacy during local anesthesia in children.2020. Available at: http://dspace.kocaeli.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/ 11493/12917 (Accessed: 01 March 2023).
 Shetty V, Suresh LR, Hegde AM. Effect of virtual reality distraction on pain and anxiety during dental treatment in 5 to 8 year old children. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2019; 43: 97–102.
 Kuşcu ÖÖ. Examination of children’s pain and anxiety by psychometric, physiologic and observational methods during dental treatment and local anesthesia by two different dental injectors. Marmara Universitesi. 2006; 1: 1–24. (In Turkish)
 Thoppe-Dhamodhara Y, Asokan S, John B, 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. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2015; 7: e513–e518.
 Özer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I. A comparative evaluation of pain and anxiety levels in 2 different anesthesia techniques: locoregional anesthesia using conventional syringe versus intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system (Quicksleeper). Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012; 114: S132–S139.
 Goyal R, Nandlal B, Prashanth. Pain perception and procedural tolerance with computer controlled and conventional local anesthetic technique: an in vivo comparative study. Indian Journal of Pain. 2014; 28: 143.
 Smolarek PDC, 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 Odontologica Scandinavica. 2020; 78: 445–453.
 Patil A, Saurabh S, Pragya P, Aijazuddin A, Chandra S, Singh Chawla J. Comparative assessment of perceived pain in children during palatal anesthesia using two injection techniques: an in vivo study. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2022; 14: 503.
 Sıxou J, Marie‐Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert J. Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper™). International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2009; 19: 360–366.
 Tahmassebi JF, Nikolaou M, Duggal MS. A comparison of pain and anxiety associated with the administration of maxillary local analgesia with Wand and conventional technique. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2009; 10: 77–82.
 Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S. A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand® and a traditional syringe. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2012; 16: 207–212.
 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 Research and Management. 2017; 2017: 1–6.
 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. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2018; 56: 744–749.
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.