Comparative Analysis Between Computed and Conventional Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Techniques

Araújo, Gabriela Madeira; Barbalho, Jimmy Charles Melo; Dias, Tasiana Guedes de Souza; Santos, Thiago de Santana; Vasconcellos, Ricardo José de Holanda; Morais, Hécio Henrique Araújo de

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000002245

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on the computer-controlled injection system has dealt with the pain of injection. In general, the results have been favorable for the computer-assisted injection system [6, 7, 19-23, 27, 36, 39-42]; other studies showed no differences [30,[43][44][45][46][47]. In the present study, four aspects related to computer-controlled injection were assessed: pain level, precision to anesthetize a single tooth, anxiety level, and efficacy to reach an adequate numbness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) seems to be most reliable and sensitive of these kinds of techniques to measure the pain intensity and is comprehensible and reliable from 8 years of age [34,35]. In addition to VAS, heart rate [6,36,40,41,45], blood pressure [40,41,45], and temperature response [6] were used in order to obtain measurements not subject to observer bias or to participant's subjective self-reporting [48]. Langthasa et al [6] reported no significant alterations during the anesthetic procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to our knowledge, few studies in the literature assessed the pain level of the Wand using a protocol similar to the present study. Many studies showed that the Wand is less painful than a conventional technique [7, 19, 21-23, 27, 36, 39, 41, 42], whereas various studies found no differences between the two anesthesia delivery systems [6,30,40,[43][44][45][46][47]. All these studies delivered the same anesthesia with both devices, and indeed, they compared the IANB provided with the conventional technique to the IANB provided with the Wand [7,18,32,44,47] or the anterior and middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection provided with both devices [20,43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise recent studies showed a preference for CCLAD over conventional syringe in terms of pain perception during administration and efficacy [6,7]. On the other hand, there are studies that show no significant difference in pain perception when comparing CCLAD with a conventional syringe [8,9]. In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Libonati et al [10] demonstrated the difference between both methods of administering anesthesia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient evaluations after local anesthesia with a computer-assisted method and a conventional syringe before and after reflection time: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Flisfisch

Woelber

Walther³

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate and compare patient response to a conventional syringe and a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD) both immediately and after reflection time, including the impact of anesthesia duration. Methods: Twenty adult patients (10 men and 10 women) with at least two tooth-neck defects each in different quadrants were treated with local buccal infiltration anesthesia. Using split-mouth design, one quadrant was anesthetized using a conventional syringe, the other with CCLAD. The time elapsed between time of injection and time of disappearance of numbness was recorded. Patients were asked to mark on a Visual Analog Scale their visual impression of the device regarding anxiety-inducement, their sensation of mucosal puncture, pain during administration, and pain perception during treatment for the two different methods as well as future preference immediately after treatment and after reflection time. Results: The level of anxiety-inducement and pain during administration were ranked three times higher with the conventional syringe (35.95%-11.85%, p < 0.001 and 21.3%-7.7%, p ¼ 0.005, respectively). There was no difference in mean sensation of mucosal puncture, nor a statistically significant correlation between duration of administration and time until disappearance of numbness. Once anesthesia was administered, no pain during treatment was detected using either method. Patients' preference of methods changed significantly with time in favor of CCLAD (p ¼ 0.01). Conclusions: The use of CCLAD increased patients' comfort visually and in terms of administration; patients' preference in favor of CCLAD increased with time. Clinical significance: Patients' preference of CCLAD over against the conventional syringe, even more so after reflection time, can imply the preference of CCLAD for clinicians, too, in order to enhance patients' and clinicians' comfort.

show abstract

“…42,43 o Computed techniques do not ad advantage for IDB efficacy. 44 o There is increasing evidence that additional injections (buccal infiltration, intraseptal, intraligamental, intra osseous) can enhance and even replace IDBS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%