International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Pain Elimination during Injection with Newer Electronic Devices: A Comparative Evaluation in Children

Neha Bansal

Keywords : Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, Comfort control syringe, Conventional syringe, Anxiety

Citation Information : Bansal N. Pain Elimination during Injection with Newer Electronic Devices: A Comparative Evaluation in Children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7 (2):71-76.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1240

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The present study was taken up to clinically evaluate and compare effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) and comfort control syringe (CCS) in various pediatric dental procedures as an alternative to the conventional method of local anesthesia (LA) administration. Materials and methods: Ninety healthy children having at least one deciduous molar tooth indicated for extraction in either maxillary right or left quadrant in age group of 6 to 10 years were randomly divided into three equal groups having 30 subjects each. Group I: LA administration using conventional syringe, group II: LA administration using TENS along with the conventional syringe, group III: LA administration using CCS. After LA by the three techniques, pain, anxiety and heart rate were measured. Statistical analysis: The observations, thus, obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA), student t-test and paired t-test. Results: The mean pain score was maximum in group I followed by group II, while group III revealed the minimum pain, where LA was administered using CCS. Mean anxiety score was maximum in group I followed by group II, while group III revealed the minimum score. Mean heart rate was maximum in group I followed in descending order by groups II and III. Conclusion: The study supports the belief that CCS could be a viable alternative in comparison to the other two methods of LA delivery in children.


PDF Share
  1. Rosa AL, Sverzut CE, Xavier SP, Lavrador MAS. Clinical effectiveness of lidocaine and benzocaine for topical anesthesia. Anes Prog 1999;46(3):97-99.
  2. Venham LL, Kremer-Gaulin E. A self-report measure of situational anxiety for young children. Ped Dent 1979;1(2):92-96.
  3. Goodenough B, Van Dongen K, Brouwer N. A comparison of the faces pain scale and the facial affective scale for children's estimates of intensity and unpleasantness of needle pain during blood sampling. Europ J Pain 1999;(3):301-315.
  4. Nicholson JW, Berry TG, Summitt JB, Yuan CH, Witten TM. Pain perception and utility: a comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques. General Dentistry 2001; 4(2):167-172.
  5. Sculean A, Kasaj A, Beradkar M, Willerhausen B. A comparison of the traditional injection and a new anesthesia technique (the Wand) for non-surgical periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2004; 1(4):363-368.
  6. Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK. Comparison of pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prevent Dent 2012;30(4): 323-328.
  7. Oztas N, Ulusu T, Bodur H, Dogan C. The Wand in pulp therapy: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Quintessence International 2005;36(7):559-564.
  8. Grace EC, Barnes DM, Reid BC, Flores M, George DL. Computerized local anesthetic systems: patient and dentist satisfaction. J Dentist 2003;31(1):9-12.
  9. Dhinsa A, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of electronic dental anesthesia with 2% lignocaine in various minor dental procedures: a clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(1):27-30.
  10. Wilson S, Molina LDL, Preisch J, Weaver J. The effect of electronic dental anesthesia on behavior during local anesthetic injection in the young, sedated dental patients. Ped Dent 1999; 21(1):12-17.
  11. Malamed SF, Quinn CL, Torgersen RT, Thompson W. Electronic dental anesthesia for restorative dentistry. Anes Prog 1989;36(4): 192-200.
  12. TeDuits E, Goepferd S, Donly K, Pinkham J, Jacobsen J. The effectiveness of electronic dental anesthesia in children. Ped Dent 1993;15:191-196.
  13. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Girdhar D. Clinical evaluation of electronic dental anesthesia for various procedures in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediat Dent 2000;24(3):199-204.
  14. Lodaya R, Bhat C, Gugwad SC, Shah P, Dayanand S. Clinical evaluation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for various treatment procedures in pediatric dentistry. Int J Clin Dent Sci 2010;1:20-25.
  15. Pashley EL, Nelson R, Pashley DH. Pressures created by dental injections. J Dent Res 1981;60:1742-1748.
  16. Krochak M, Friedman N. Using a precision: metered injection system to minimize dental injection anxiety. Compendium 1998; 19(2):137-142.
  17. Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S. Computerised local anesthetic delivery vs traditional syringe technique. New York State Dent J 1997;63(7):24-29.
  18. Dowling J. Autonomic indices and reactive pain reports on the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1982;14:387.
  19. Myers DR, Kramer WS, Sullivan RE. A study of the heart action of the child dental patient. J Dentist Child 1972;39:733-736.
  20. Cho SY, Drummond BK, Anderson MH, William SS. Effectiveness of electronic dental anesthesia for restorative care in children. Ped Dent 1998;20(2):105-111.
  21. Lopez ALSM, Esparza LDG, Delgadillo GT, Moscoso AG, Sierra JFH, Guillen AJG. Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Ped Dent 2005;29(3):239-243.
  22. Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S. A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand and a traditional syringe. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012; 16(2):207-212.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.