Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients

The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain perception rates in pediatric patients by comparing computerized injection device and traditional injection procedure. In a clinical trial, by using a crossover design, sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive, in consecutive sessions, dental anesthetic techniques with either traditional or computerized device. Visual Analogue Scale qualifica-tion and heart rate monitoring as physiologic indicator of pain response were used for the evaluation. Results showed that traditional syringe injections were more painful than computerized injection device (p<0.001). Results suggested that computerized injection device reduces pain perception com-pared to the traditional syringe during the dental anesthetic management.

1. Merskey H. Bogduk N. Classification of Chronic Pain. Seattle, IASP Press, pp. 59-76, 1994.

2. Bender IB. Pain conference Summary. J Endodon 12: 509-517, 1986.

3. Torregrosa S, Bugedo G. Medición del dolor. Boletín Esc. de Medicina, Universidad Católica de Chile 23: 155-158, 1994.

4. Sturla L, Greenberg C, Stevens B. Pain assessment in infants and children. Pediatr Clin North Am 47: 487-510, 2000.

5. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet II: 1127-1131,1974.

6. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31: 1191-1198, 1976.

7. Behrman RE, Kliegman RM, Jenson HB. Tratado de pediatría. México, McGraw Hill, pp. 336-344, 2001.

8. Shields BJ, Palermo TM, Powers JD, Grewe SD, Smith GA. Predictors of a child´s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 29: 281-290, 2003.

9. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. JADA 128: 756-762, 1997.

10. Caprara JH, Eleazer PD, Barfield RD, Barfield RD, Chavers S. Objetive measurement of patient´s dental anxiety by galvanic skin reaction. J Endodon 29: 493-96, 2003.

11. Maragakis GM, Musselman RJ.The time used to administer local anesthesia to 5 and 6 year olds. Pediatr Dent 20: 321-23, 1996.

12. Jones CM, Heldmann J., Gerrish AC. 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, 1995.

13. Ram D, Hermida L, Peretz B. A comparison of warmed and room-temperature for local anesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent 24: 333-336, 2002.

14. Gill CJ, Orr II L. A double-blind crossover comparison of topical anesthetics. JADA 98: 213-214, 1979.

15. Kreider KA, Trarmann RG, Milano M, Agostino FG, Munsell M. Reducing children´s injection pain: lidocaine patches versus top-ical benzocaine gel. Pediatr Dent 23: 19-23, 2001.

16. Fuller JR, Pitts JF, Koornneef L. A simple method of warming local anaesthetic solutions. Eye 9: 809-810, 1995.

17. Bainbridge LC. Comparison of room-temperature and body temperature local anaesthetic solutions. Br J Plast Sur 44: 147-148, 1991.

18. Jones CM, Heldmann J, Gerrish AC. 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, 1995.

19. Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of computer-ized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 21: 421-429, 1999.

20. Smith TA, Heaton LJ. Fear of dental care, Are we making any progress? JADA 134: 1101-1108, 2003.

21. Wong JK. Adjuncts to local anesthesia: separating fact from fic-tion. J Can Dent Assoc 67: 391-7, 2001.

22. Wagner KS, Petersen BS. Technological advances in the dental office. (abstract 1384). J Dent Res 80: 208, 2001.

23. Saravia ME, Bush JP. The needless syringe: Efficacy of anesthe-sia and patient preference in child dental patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 15: 109-12, 1991.

24. Bennett CR, Monheim LM. Production of local anesthesia by jet injection. Oral Surg 32: 526-530, 1971.

25. Munshi AK, Hedge 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 25: 131-6, 2001.

26. Van Waes H. Control del miedo y del dolor. Atlas de Odontología Pediátrica. México, Masson, pp. 151-172, 2002.

27. Blanton PL, Jeske AH. Dental local anesthetics, alternative delivery methods. JADA 134: 228-233, 2003.

28. Dunbar D, Reader A, Nist R, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of intraosseous injection after an inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endodon 22: 481-6, 1996.

29. Guglielmo A, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M., Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy and rate effects of supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 87: 284-93, 1999.

30. Leonard MS. The efficacy of intraosseus injection system of delivering local anesthetic. JADA 126: 81-6, 1995.

31. Tan PY, Vukasin P, Chin ID, Giona CJ, Ortega AE, Anthone GJ, et al. The WandTM local anesthetic delivery system, a more pleasant experience for anal anesthesia. Dis Colon Rectum 44: 686- 689, 2001.

32. Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S. Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. New York State Dent J 63: 24- 9, 1997.

33. Dental Product Spotlight. Local anesthetic delivery system. JADA 133: 103-107, 2002.

34. Lieberman WH. The Wand. Pediatr Dent 21: 124, 1999.

35. Milestone Scientific, inventors; CompuDentTM. Operating Manual, computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system. 1-27.

36. Allen KD, Kotil D, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a com-puterized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 24: 315-320, 2002.

37. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5: 299-314, 1991.

38. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs. tradi-tional injection: A comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent 22: 458-462, 2002.

39. Saloum FS, Baumgartner JC, Marshall G, Tinkle J. A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand and a traditional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radio Endod 89: 691- 5, 2000.

40. Primosh RE, Brooks R. Influence of anesthetic flow rate deliv-ered by the Wand Local Anesthesic system on pain response to palatal injections. Am J Dent 15: 15-20, 2002.

41. Ram D, Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiv-ing periodontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (Wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent 27: 247-250, 2003.

42. Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child 70: 130-3, 2003.

43. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs tradi-tional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent 22: 458-62, 2000.