Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-04-2021 | Local Anesthesia in Dentistry | Original Article

“Comparative study of conventional anesthesia technique versus computerized system anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial”

Authors: S. Berrendero, O. Hriptulova, M. P. Salido, F. Martínez-Rus, G. Pradíes

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2021

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study was to compare in terms of pain perception the use of conventional anesthesia and a computerized system.

Materials and methods

Forty patients in need for extractions, dental restorative, or periodontal treatment bilaterally, were selected. Each patient served as his/her own control being subjected to two anesthesia techniques: conventional and electronically controlled anesthesia with Calaject® (Rønvig Dental MFG, Daugaard, Denmark). Each patient received both treatments in a blind way 1 week apart. The order was previously randomized. After performing the anesthesia (upper dental nerve, palatal posterior nerve, or inferior alveolar nerve), the patients evaluated their pain sensation with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0–10). After treatment, the patients were asked about the presence of pain during the procedure. Finally, the patients selected their preference between the conventional and electronic anesthesia technique. Differences in assessment of pain’s injection were analyzed using the Wilcoxon test and the Kruskal-Wallis test (α = 0.05).

Results

The mean general pain experienced was 3.73 (1.55 SD) for the conventional anesthesia, and 1.95 (0.53 SD) for computerized anesthesia. Statistical differences (p < 0.05) were found. There was no difference between the treatments (p value = 0.061). Most patients did not feel any pain during the treatment. Finally, 92.5% of the patients preferred the electronic system.

Conclusions

Computerized anesthesia system produces significantly less pain compared with a conventional anesthesia syringe. Although both obtained sufficient anesthetic depth to perform treatments, the majority of patients chose electronic anesthesia as the most satisfactory.

Clinical relevance

Computerized anesthesia devices are valid and more comfortable alternative to conventional anesthesia.

Dabiri D, Harper DE, Kapila Y, Kruger GH, Clauw DJ, Harte S (2018) Applications of sensory and physiological measurement in oral-facial dental pain. Spec Care Dentist 38:395–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.12323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kleinknecht RA, Klepac RK, Alexander LD (1973) Origins and characteristics of fear of dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 86:842–848. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1973.0165CrossRefPubMed

Ballard BE (1968) Biopharmaceutical considerations in subcutaneous and intramuscular drug administration. J Pharm Sci 57:357–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600570301CrossRefPubMed

Meechan JG, Howlett PC, Smith BD (2005) Factors influencing the discomfort of intraoral needle penetration. Anesth Prog 52:91–94. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[91:FITDOI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Malamed SF (1998) Local anesthesia. J Calif Dent Assoc 26(657):660

Ram D, Hermida LB, Peretz B (2002) A comparison of warmed and room-temperature anesthetic for local anesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent 24:333–336PubMed

Lee SH, Lee NY (2013) An alternative local anaesthesia technique to reduce pain in paediatric patients during needle insertion. Eur J Paediatr Dent 14:109–112PubMed

Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC (1995) Children's ratings of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 5:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263x.1995.tb00169.xCrossRefPubMed

Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S (1997) Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. N Y State Dent J 63:24–29PubMed

10.

Saloum FS, Baumgartner JC, Marshall G, Tinkle J (2000) A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand and a traditional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89:691–695. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.106333CrossRefPubMed

11.

Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S (1999) Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 21:421–424PubMed

12.

Yenisey M (2009) Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 17:414–420. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572009000500012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2004) Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98:124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.02.064CrossRefPubMed

14.

Loomer PM, Perry DA (2004) Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planing. J Am Dent Assoc 135:358–365. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0188CrossRefPubMed

15.

Feda M, Al Amoudi N, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N, Masoud I, Almushyt A (2010) A comparative study of children's pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent 34:217–222. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.34.3.3201l74255560520CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kwok V, Caton JG (2007) Commentary: prognosis revisited: a system for assigning periodontal prognosis. J Periodontol 78:2063–2071. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.070210CrossRefPubMed

17.

Papapanou PN, Sanz M, Buduneli N, Dietrich T, Feres M, Fine DH, Flemmig TF, Garcia R, Giannobile WV, Graziani F, Greenwell H, Herrera D, Kao RT, Kebschull M, Kinane DF, Kirkwood KL, Kocher T, Kornman KS, Kumar PS, Loos BG, Machtei E, Meng H, Mombelli A, Needleman I, Offenbacher S, Seymour GJ, Teles R, Tonetti MS (2018) Periodontitis: consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Clin Periodontol 45(Suppl 20):S162–S170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12946CrossRefPubMed

18.

San Martin-Lopez AL, Garrigos-Esparza LD, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra JF, de Pozos-Guillen AJ (2005) Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29:239–243. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.29.3.jgh607l870051882CrossRefPubMed

19.

Primosch RE, Brooks R (2002) Influence of anesthetic flow rate delivered by the Wand Local Anesthetic System on pain response to palatal injections. Am J Dent 15:15–20PubMed

20.

Friedman MJ and Hochman MN (1997) A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ : 1995) 18:995-1000, 1002-3; quiz 1004

21.

Franck LS, Greenberg CS, Stevens B (2000) Pain assessment in infants and children. Pediatr Clin N Am 47:487–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-3955(05)70222-4CrossRef

22.

Shields BJ, Palermo TM, Powers JD, Grewe SD, Smith GA (2003) Predictors of a child's ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 29:281–290. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00343.xCrossRefPubMed

23.

Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha M (2012) Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 17:e426–e429. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17543CrossRefPubMed

24.

Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK (2012) Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 30:323–328. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.108931CrossRefPubMed

25.

Nicholson JW, Berry TG, Summitt JB, Yuan CH, Witten TM (2001) Pain perception and utility: a comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques. Gen Dent 49:167–173PubMed

26.

Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S (2004) The wand versus traditional injection for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: perceived pain and time of onset. Pediatr Dent 26:481–484PubMed

27.

Ram D, Peretz B (2003) The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill) 70:130–133

28.

Singh S, Garg A (2013) Comparison of the pain levels of computer controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in supraperiosteal injections: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Acta Odontol Scand 71:740–743. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.71520CrossRefPubMed

29.

Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Tasdemir T (2008) Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. British dental journal 205:E10; discussion:258–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.801, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.757

30.

Romero-Galvez J, Berini-Aytes L, Figueiredo R, Arnabat-Dominguez J (2016) A randomized split-mouth clinical trial comparing pain experienced during palatal injections with traditional syringe versus controlled-flow delivery Calaject technique. Quintessence Int 47:797–802. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a36566CrossRefPubMed

31.

Campanella V, Libonati A, Nardi R, Angotti V, Gallusi G, Montemurro E, D'Amario M, Marzo G (2018) Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study. Clin Oral Investig 22:3205–3213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2413-2CrossRefPubMed

32.

Chang H, Noh J, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC (2016) Relief of injection pain during delivery of local anesthesia by computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system for periodontal surgery: randomized clinical controlled trial. J Periodontol 87:783–789. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.150448CrossRefPubMed

33.

Jalevik B, Klingberg G (2014) Pain sensation and injection techniques in maxillary dento-alveolar surgery procedures in children--a comparison between conventional and computerized injection techniques (The Wand). Swed Dent J 38:67–75PubMed

34.

Kammerer PW, Schiegnitz E, von Haussen T, Shabazfar N, Kammerer P, Willershausen B, Al-Nawas B, Daublander M (2015) Clinical efficacy of a computerised device (STA) and a pressure syringe (VarioJect INTRA) for intraligamentary anaesthesia. Eur J Dent Educ 19:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12096CrossRefPubMed

35.

Nusstein J, Kennedy S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 29:724–728. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00010CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ozer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I (2012) 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 Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:S132–S139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.09.021CrossRefPubMed

37.

Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S (2012) A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand((R)) and a traditional syringe. J Indian Soc Periodontol 16:207–212. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.99263CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Sumer M, Misir F, Koyuturk AE (2006) Comparison of the Wand with a conventional technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101:e106–e109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.12.002CrossRefPubMed

39.

Yogesh Kumar TD, John JB, Asokan S, Geetha Priya PR, Punithavathy R, Praburajan V (2015) Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 33:223–228. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.160394CrossRefPubMed

40.

Al-Obaida MI, Haider M, Hashim R, AlGheriri W, Celur SL, Al-Saleh SA, Al-Madi EM (2019) Comparison of perceived pain and patients' satisfaction with traditional local anesthesia and single tooth anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial. World J Clin Cases 7:2986–2994. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i19.2986CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Tahmassebi JF, Nikolaou M, Duggal MS (2009) A comparison of pain and anxiety associated with the administration of maxillary local analgesia with Wand and conventional technique. European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 10:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03321604CrossRef

42.

Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J (2008) Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J 205:E2; discussion 30-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.414CrossRefPubMed

43.

Al Amoudi N, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N (2008) 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 33:97–102. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.33.2.d666m2l43334274pCrossRefPubMed

44.

Kandiah P, Tahmassebi JF (2012) Comparing the onset of maxillary infiltration local anaesthesia and pain experience using the conventional technique vs. the Wand in children. Br Dent J 213:E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.988CrossRefPubMed

45.

Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM (2016) The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 47:217–224. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34977CrossRefPubMed

46.

Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM (2015) The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 46:799–806. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34553CrossRefPubMed

47.

Thoppe-Dhamodhara YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P (2015) Cartridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: pain related behaviour over two sequential visits - a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Dent 7:e513–e518. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Mittal M, Kumar A, Srivastava D, Sharma P, Sharma S (2015) Pain perception: computerized versus traditional local anesthesia in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 39:470–474. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.470CrossRefPubMed

49.

Patini R, Staderini E, Cantiani M, Camodeca A, Guglielmi F, Gallenzi P (2018) 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 56:744–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.006CrossRefPubMed

50.

Kwak EJ, Pang NS, Cho JH, Jung BY, Kim KD, Park W (2016) Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery for painless anesthesia: a literature review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 16:81–88. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2016.16.2.81CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Garret-Bernardin A, Cantile T, D'Anto V, Galanakis A, Fauxpoint G, Ferrazzano GF, De Rosa S, Vallogini G, Romeo U, Galeotti A (2017) Pain experience and behavior management in pediatric dentistry: a comparison between traditional local anesthesia and the wand computerized delivery system. Pain Res Manag 2017:7941238–7941236. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7941238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Rosenberg ES (2002) A computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system in a periodontal practice: patient satisfaction and acceptance. Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry [et al] 14:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00146.xCrossRef

53.

Grace EG, Barnes DM, Reid BC, Flores M, George DL (2003) Computerized local dental anesthetic systems: patient and dentist satisfaction. J Dent 31:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00130-6CrossRefPubMed

Title: “Comparative study of conventional anesthesia technique versus computerized system anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial”
Authors: S. Berrendero
O. Hriptulova
M. P. Salido
F. Martínez-Rus
G. Pradíes
Publication date: 01-04-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Local Anesthesia in Dentistry
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03553-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

“Comparative study of conventional anesthesia technique versus computerized system anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial”

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Differences in skeletal growth patterns: an exploratory approach using elliptic Fourier analysis

Artificial intelligence-driven novel tool for tooth detection and segmentation on panoramic radiographs

Efficacy of gel-based artificial saliva on Candida colonization and saliva properties in xerostomic post-radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial

Effect of personality traits on the oral health-related quality of life in patients with oral lichen planus undergoing treatment

Do the tube current and metal artifact reduction influence the diagnosis of vertical root fracture in a tooth positioned in the vicinity of a zirconium implant? A CBCT study

Missed canals in endodontically treated maxillary molars of a Brazilian subpopulation: prevalence and association with periapical lesion using cone-beam computed tomography