Pain Perception of Needle-free System

NCT04653974 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: U1111-1257-5993
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 56
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the pain perception associated with a needle-free injection system( Comfort-In) and dental injection method in filling and pulpotomy treatments

Conditions

Pain; Needle Phobia; Anxiety; Dental Fear; Local Anesthesia

Keywords

Children; Dental injection; Needle-free injection system; Pain; Pulpotomy

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Pain at different anesthesia methods

  The pain perception scores in the two anesthesia methods were assessed with Wong-Baker Pain Scale (Wong-Baker Scale is pain assessment method.It consists of 6 facial expressions that are evaluated from 0 to 10 according to the severity of the pain.)

  after dental treatments to 24 hour

Study Arms (2)

Needle-free injection group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

In needle-free injection techniques, 2% lidocaine with 1/80.000 epinephrine (Lidocaine, Colombia) was injected using the Comfort-In system.

Behavioral: Needle-free injection

Dental injection group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

In the conventional dental-injection method, 2% lidocaine with 1/80.000 epinephrine (Lidocaine, Colombia) was injected using a 27G, 40-mm, disposable syringe with a needle.

Behavioral: Needle-free injection

Interventions

Needle-free injection BEHAVIORAL

This study was performed among children aged 4-11 years who required dental treatment and were treated at the Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University. A total of 70 patients were evaluated in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 56 children (31 girls and 25 boys) were included in this study. Children who needed dental treatment were randomly divided into two groups. All dental injections were administered by the same operator (MB), a pediatric dentist with two years of experience in using the Comfort-In system. In both groups, the children were asked to rate their pain intensity by choosing the closest statement on the Wong-Baker Pain Scale at three time points: immediately after injection (Pain 1), during treatment (Pain 2), and at the end of the treatment (Pain 3).

Also known as: Dental injection

Dental injection group; Needle-free injection group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 4 Years - 11 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17)

You may qualify if:

• Aged between 4-11 years
• Having no developmental or systemic disorder or no history of allergy
• Having "positive" or "definitely positive" cooperation level according to the Frankl Behavior Scale
• Having sufficient mouth opening
• Operation only on primary teeth
• Having decayed teeth that require anesthesia

You may not qualify if:

• Patients younger than five years, older than 11 years,
• Patients with systemic or developmental disorders
• Children with an allergy history
• 'Negative' or 'definitly negative' behavior rating according to the Frankl scale
• Patients whose mouth opening is not sufficient for dental treatment
• Operating only on permanent teeth
• Teeth that are beyond the treatment stage
• When pain occurred during treatment, supplemental anesthetics administrated, and these children were excluded.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Dentistry

Tokat Province, Center, 60250, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (20)

• Makade CS, Shenoi PR, Gunwal MK. Comparison of acceptance, preference and efficacy between pressure anesthesia and classical needle infiltration anesthesia for dental restorative procedures in adult patients. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):169-74. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.128063.

  PMID: 24778516 BACKGROUND

• Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A, Kotsanos N. Comparison of acceptance, preference, and efficacy between jet injection INJEX and local infiltration anesthesia in 6 to 11 year old dental patients. Anesth Prog. 2010 Spring;57(1):3-12. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3.

  PMID: 20331333 BACKGROUND

• Oliveira ACA, Amorim KS, Nascimento Junior EMD, Duarte ACB, Groppo FC, Takeshita WM, Souza LMA. Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Jan 14;27:e20180195. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195.

  PMID: 30673030 BACKGROUND

• Greenfield W, Karpinski JF. Clinical application of jet injection to comprehensive pain control. Anesth Prog. 1973 Jul-Aug;20(4):110-2. No abstract available.

  PMID: 4516579 BACKGROUND

• Saravia ME, Bush JP. The needleless syringe: efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference in child dental patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1991 Winter;15(2):109-12.

  PMID: 1931745 BACKGROUND

• Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM. The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2015 Oct;46(9):799-806. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a34553.

  PMID: 26287025 BACKGROUND

• Munshi AK, Hegde 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. 2001 Winter;25(2):131-6. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.25.2.q6426p853266q575.

  PMID: 11314212 BACKGROUND

• Ogle OE, Mahjoubi G. Advances in local anesthesia in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011 Jul;55(3):481-99, viii. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.007.

  PMID: 21726685 BACKGROUND

• Sermet Elbay U, Elbay M, Yildirim S, Kaya E, Kaya C, Ugurluel C, BaydemIr C. Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;26(5):336-45. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12204. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

  PMID: 26369274 BACKGROUND

• Oztas N, Olmez A, Yel B. Clinical evaluation of transcutaneous electronic nerve stimulation for pain control during tooth preparation. Quintessence Int. 1997 Sep;28(9):603-8.

  PMID: 9477875 BACKGROUND

• Goodell GG, Gallagher FJ, Nicoll BK. Comparison of a controlled injection pressure system with a conventional technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000 Jul;90(1):88-94. doi: 10.1067/moe.2000.107365.

  PMID: 10884642 BACKGROUND

• Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs. traditional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;22(6):458-62.

  PMID: 11132503 BACKGROUND

• Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 1999 Nov-Dec;21(7):421-4.

  PMID: 10633514 BACKGROUND

• Ocak H, Akkoyun EF, Colpak HA, Demetoglu U, Yucesoy T, Kilic E, Alkan A. Is the jet injection effective for teeth extraction? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Feb;121(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.05.001. Epub 2019 May 8.

  PMID: 31077857 BACKGROUND

• Kuensting LL, DeBoer S, Holleran R, Shultz BL, Steinmann RA, Venella J. Difficult venous access in children: taking control. J Emerg Nurs. 2009 Sep;35(5):419-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2009.01.014. Epub 2009 Mar 21. No abstract available.

  PMID: 19748021 BACKGROUND

• Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Jun;128(6):756-66. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0301.

  PMID: 9188235 BACKGROUND

• Splieth CH, Bunger B, Pine C. Barriers for dental treatment of primary teeth in East and West Germany. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Mar;19(2):84-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00949.x. Epub 2008 Dec 19.

  PMID: 19207736 BACKGROUND

• Oosterink FM, de Jongh A, Aartman IH. What are people afraid of during dental treatment? Anxiety-provoking capacity of 67 stimuli characteristic of the dental setting. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008 Feb;116(1):44-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00500.x.

  PMID: 18186731 BACKGROUND

• Deepak V, Challa RR, Kamatham R, Nuvvula S. Comparison of a New Auto-controlled Injection System with Traditional Syringe for Mandibular Infiltrations in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2017 Apr-Jun;11(2):431-438. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.194535.

  PMID: 28663636 BACKGROUND

• Altan H, Belevcikli M, Cosgun A, Demir O. Comparative evaluation of pain perception with a new needle-free system and dental needle method in children: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Dec 1;21(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12871-021-01524-1.

  PMID: 34852779 DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Pain; Anxiety Disorders

Interventions

Dental Health Services

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Neurologic Manifestations; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Mental Disorders

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Health Services; Health Care Facilities Workforce and Services

Study Officials

• Halenur Altan, Assoc Prof.

  Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Associated Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: November 28, 2020
• First Posted: December 4, 2020
• Study Start: March 11, 2019
• Primary Completion: August 5, 2019
• Study Completion: August 5, 2019
• Last Updated: December 23, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-12

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

TU (1)