Assessment of the Anesthetic Effectiveness of Anterior and Middle Superior Alveolar injection Using a Computerized Device versus Traditional Technique in Children

The study aims to evaluate the anesthetic effectiveness of the Anterior and Middle Superior Alveolar (AMSA)injection administered through a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD), and compare it with the traditional buccal and palatal injections used to anesthetize maxillary primary molars.Materials and methods: the sample included 80 primary maxillary molars, divided into 2 equal groups:Pulpotomy and extraction groups. Each group was divided equally into 4 subgroups: A. First molars anesthetized with the traditional technique, B. first molars anesthetized with the CCLAD, C. second molars anesthetized with the traditional technique, and D. second molars anesthetized with the CCLAD. The evaluation was done single blind using SEM scale. Results: the AMSA injection with the CCLAD was found to be effective in anesthetizing maxillary primary molars in pulpotomy and extraction procedures. There was no significant difference between the two anesthetic techniques except in the step of gingival retraction buccally in, which the traditional injections were more effective than the CCLAD during extractions. No significant difference was found between first and second primary molars in the effectiveness of both techniques. Conclusion:the AMSA injection using CCLAD was found to be effective in children.

Anesthesia, primary molars, wands, pulpotomy, extraction, children

1. Friedman M, Hochman M. The AMSA injection: A new concept for local anesthesia of maxillary teeth using a computer controlled injec-tion system. Quintessense Int, 29(5): 297–303, 1998.

2. Asarch T, Allen KD, Peterson BS and Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a com-puterized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent, 21(7): 421–424, 1999.

3. Gibson R, Allen K, Hutfless S and Beiraghi S. The Wand Vs. traditional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatric Dent, 22(6): 458–462, 2000.

4. Allen KD, Kortil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent, 24: 315–320, 2002.

5. Ran D, Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiving peri-odontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (Wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent, 27: 247–250, 2003.

6. Ram C and Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (WAND) and a con-ventional syringe. J Dent Child, 70(2): 131–133, 2005.

7. Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S. The wand versus traditional injec-tion for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: Perceived pain and time onset. Pediatr Dent, 26: 481–484, 2004.

8. San Martin-Lopez A, Garrigos-Esparza L, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra J, Pozos-Guillen A. Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anes-thesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Ped Dent, 29: 239–243, 2005.

9. Askenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effectiveness of computerized delivery of intrasulcular ansthetic in primary molars. JADA, 136: 1418–1425, 2005.

10. Oztas N, Ulusu T, Bodur H, Dogan C. The Wand in pulp therapy: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Quintessense Int, 36(7–8): 559–564, 2005.

11. Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Computerized anesthesia deliv-ery system vs. traditional syringe: comparing pain and pain-related behavior in children. Eur J Oral Sci, 113(6): 488–493, 2005.

12. Ashkenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effectiveness of various modes of com-puterized delivery of local anesthesia in primary maxillary molars. Pediatr Dent, 28(1): 29–38, 2006.

13. 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, 16(5): 348–351, 2006.

14. Frankl SN, Shiere FR and Fogels HR: Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child, 29: 150, 1962.

15. Milestone Scientific. The Wand: Computer controlled anesthesia deliv-ery system (manual). pp 1–27, 1998.

16. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R and Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibualr primary molar region. Pediatr Dent, 13(5): 278–283, 1991.

17. Friedman MJ, Hochman MN. A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control. Compend, 18: 995–1003, 1997.

18. Krochak M and Friedman M. Using a precision metered injection sys-tem to minimize dental injection-anxiety. Compend, 19: 137–148, 1998.

19. Friedman M, Hochman M. P-ASA block injection: A new palatal tech-nique to anesthetize maxillary anterior teeth. Quintessense Int, 11 (2): 63–71, 1999.

20. Sharaf AT. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthe-sia in pediatric dentistry. J Dent Child, 276–281, 1997.

21. Nakai Y, Milgrom P, Coldwell S, Domoto P, Ramsay D. Effectiveness of local anesthesia in pediatric dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc, 131(12): 1699–1705, 2000.

22. Fukayama H, Yoshikawa F, Kohase H, Umino M, Suzuki N. Efficacy of anterior and middle superior alveolar (AMSA) anesthesia using a new injection system: the Wand. Quintessense Int, 34(7): 537–541, 2003.

23. Lee S, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection. Anesth Prog, 51(3): 80–89, 2004.