A Comparative Study of Children’s Pain Reactions and Perceptions to AMSA Injection using CCLAD versus Traditional Injections

Pain control is an important part of dentistry, particularly in pediatric dentistry. Recently, a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD) has been developed to reduce pain related to the local anesthetic injection. In conjunction with this technology, a new approach to the anterior and middle superior alveolar nerves (AMSA) has been induced. Studies evaluating the CCLAD in pediatric dentistry showed variable results regarding its use in pediatric dentistry. Further evaluation of this technique is needed to provide sound scientific evidence on the use of the CCLAD at this specific injection site in children. Aim:To assess children's pain reactions and pain perceptions of the AMSA injection using the CCLAD compared to the traditional buccal/palatal injections. Materials and methods: Children's pain reactions and perceptions to both techniques were measured in a group of 40 children who received both anesthetic techniques alternatively on two visits. The pain reactions were scored using the SEM scale, whereas the pain perception was evaluated by the Eland color scale. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 10.0.Results: The AMSA injection delivered with the CCLAD had significantly lower mean pain reaction scores compared to traditional buccal and palatal injections. The prolonged injection time required for delivering the CCLAD injection had no negative impact on the children. The children's pain perception scores when using the CCLAD were also significantly lower compared to the traditional injection. Conclusion: The AMSA injection delivered with the CCLAD was found to be a promising device, and had significantly lower pain reaction and perception scores compared to the traditional buccal and palatal injections.

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):421–24, 1999.

3. 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, 2003.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

8. Ram 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.

9. 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): 559–64, 2005.

10. 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): 488–93, 2005.

11. 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): 348–51, 2006.

12. 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.

13. 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.

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. teDuits E, Goepferd S, Donly K, Pinkham J, Jakobsen J. The effective-ness of electronic dental anaesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent, 15: 191–196, 1993.

17. Hammond NI.and Full CA. Nitrous oxide analgesia and children’s per-ception of pain. Pediatr Dent, 6: 238–242, 1984.

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

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

20. Nakai Y, Milgrom P, Mancl L, Coldwell S, Domoto P, Ramsy D. Effec-tiveness of local anesthesia in pediatric dental practice. JADA, 131: 1699–1705, 2000.

21. Malamed SF, Handbook of local anesthesia. Local anesthetic Consid-erations in dental specialties in 5th ed: Mosby Inc, pp 274–275, 2004.

22. Roberts DH, Sowray JH. Local Analgesia in Dentistry. Anatomy in relation to local analgesia in 3rd ed: Wright, pp 78–83, 1987.

23. Kudo M. Initial injection pressure for dental local anesthesia: effects on pain and anxiety. Aneth Prog, 52(3): 95–101, 2005.

24. Revill S, Robinson J, Rosen M, Hogg M. The reliability of a linear ana-logue for evaluating pain. Anesthesia, 31: 1191–1198, 1976.

25. Shields B, Palermo T, Powers J, Grewe S, Smith G. Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Scale Care Health Dev, 29: 281–290, 2003.