Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Clinical Oral Investigations
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations 9/2018

10.03.2018 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Vincenzo Campanella, Antonio Libonati, Roberto Nardi, Vincenzo Angotti, Gianni Gallusi, Edoardo Montemurro, Maurizio D’Amario, Giuseppe Marzo

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 9/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to compare an electronic device, the Wand Injection System (Milestone Scientific Livingstone), with conventional anesthesia in terms of the following: pain sensation during anesthetic injection; effectiveness in achieving adequate anesthesia for a complete painless dental treatment; post-operative discomfort; and patient’s anxiety toward dental treatment.

Materials and methods

Eighty adults from 18 to 70 years were enrolled in this cross-over study. Each patient served as his/her own control being subject to two anesthesia techniques: conventional and Single Tooth Anesthesia (STA) performed with the Wand. A split-mouth design was adopted in which each tooth undergoing conservative restorative or endodontic treatment received anesthesia with both techniques at 1-week interval. Before anesthetic administration, the patients’ anxiety levels were determined. Physiological parameteres were measured before, during, and after the two injection procedures, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain of injection, discomfort, and anesthetic efficacy. Differences in assessment of pain’s injection, discomfort, anesthetic efficacy, vital parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation), and state anxiety levels were analyzed using Student’s t test (p value < 0.001).

Results

The mean injection pain and post-operative discomfort ratings with Wand were lower than those with conventional syringe (p = 0.022 and p < 0.001, respectively). No differences were found in the assessment of anesthetic efficacy. Blood pressure and heart rate mean values were lower during the anesthesia performed with the Wand than with the conventional syringe (p < 0.001). The anxiety level was higher during the first appointment, independently from the device used for the injections.

Conclusion

The STA technique resulted in lower pain, discomfort, and lower intensity of physiological parameters.

Clinical relevance

Single Tooth Anesthesia could be an efficacious alternative to conventional procedures.
Literatur
1.
Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S (1999) Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 21(7):421–424PubMed
2.
Matthews DC, Rocchi A, Gafni A (2001) Factors affecting patients’ and potential patients’ choices among anaesthetics for periodontal recall visits. J Dent 29(3):173–179CrossRef
3.
Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Overton DA, Gordon MK (2002) Injection pain of bupivacaine with epinephrine vs. prilocaine plain. J Am Dent Assoc 133(12):1652–1656CrossRef
4.
Ballard BE (1968) Biopharmaceutical considerations in subcutaneous and intramuscular drug administration. J Pharm Sci 57(3):357–378CrossRef
5.
Meechan JG, Howlett PC, Smith BD (2005) Factors influencing the discomfort of intraoral needle penetration. Anesth Prog 52(3):91–94CrossRef
6.
Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK (2012) Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 30(4):323–328CrossRef
7.
Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Tasdemir T (2008) Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Br Dent J 205(5):E10 discussion 258-259CrossRef
8.
Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS (1997) Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc 128(6):756–766CrossRef
9.
Caprara HJ, Eleazer PD, Barfield RD, Chavers S (2003) Objective measurement of patient’s dental anxiety by galvanic skin reaction. J Endod 29(8):493–496CrossRef
10.
Maragakis GM, Musselman RJ (1996) The time used to administer local anesthesia to 5 and 6 year olds. J Clin Pediatr Dent 20(4):321–323PubMed
11.
Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC (1995) Children’s ratings of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 5(2):81–85CrossRef
12.
Hersh EV, Houpt MI, Cooper SA, Feldman RS, Wolff MS, Levin LM (1996) Analgesic efficacy and safety of an intraoral lidocaine patch. J Am Dent Assoc 127(11):1626–1634 quiz 65-66CrossRef
13.
Ram D, Hermida LB, Peretz B (2002) A comparison of warmed and room-temperature anesthetic for local anesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent 24(4):333–336PubMed
14.
Lee SH, Lee NY (2013) An alternative local anaesthesia technique to reduce pain in paediatric patients during needle insertion. Eur J Paediatr Dent 14(2):109–112PubMed
15.
Ghaderi F, Ghaderi R, Devermanesh M, Bayani M, Arabzade Moghadam S (2016) Pain management during needle insertion with low level laser. Eur J Peadiatr Dent 17(2):151–154
16.
Elbay M, Şermet Elbay Ü, Yıldırım S, Uğurluel C, Kaya C, Baydemir C (2015) Comparison of injection pain caused by the DentalVibe injection system versus a traditional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in pediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent 16(2):123–128PubMed
17.
Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S (1997) Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. N Y State Dent J 63(7):24–29PubMed
18.
Saloum FS, Baumgartner JC, Marshall G, Tinkle J (2000) A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand and a traditional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89(6):691–695CrossRef
19.
Loomer PM, Perry DA (2004) Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planing. J Am Dent Assoc 135(3):358–365CrossRef
20.
Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2004) Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98(1):124–131CrossRef
21.
Yenisey M (2009) Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 17(5):414–420CrossRef
22.
Feda M, Amoudi NA, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N, Masoud I, Almushyt A (2010) A comparative study of children's pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent 34(3):217–222CrossRef
23.
Singh S, Garg A (2013) Comparison of the pain levels of computer controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in supraperiosteal injections: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Acta Odont Scand 71(3–4):740–743CrossRef
24.
Gallatin J, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) A comparison of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques in mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 34(11):1476–1484CrossRef
25.
Whitworth JM, Ramlee RA, Meechan JG (2005) Pressures generated in vitro during Stabident intraosseous injections. Int Endod J 38(5):291–296CrossRef
26.
Prohić S, Sulejmanagić H, Secić S (2005) The efficacy of supplemental intraosseous anesthesia after insufficient mandibular block. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 5:57–60CrossRef
27.
Nusstein J, Kennedy S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 29:724–728CrossRef
28.
Sixou JL, Barbosa-Rogier ME (2008) Efficacy of intraosseous injections of anesthetic in children and adolescents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106(2):173–178CrossRef
29.
Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC (2009) Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseousanaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent 19(5):360–366CrossRef
30.
Beneito-Brotons R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Peñarrocha MA (2012) Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 1(17(3)):426–429CrossRef
31.
Ozer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I (2012) A comparative evaluation of pain and anxiety levels in 2 different anesthesia techniques: locoregional anesthesia using conventional syringe versus intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system (Quicksleeper). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114(Suppl. 5):S132–S139CrossRef
32.
Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S (2004) The wand versus traditional injection for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: perceived pain and time of onset. Pediatr Dent 26(6):481–484PubMed
33.
Corah NL (1988) Dental anxiety. Assessment, reduction and increasing patient satisfaction. Dent Clin N Am 32(4):779–790PubMed
34.
Franck LS, Greenberg CS, Stevens B (2000) Pain assessment in infants and children. Pediatr Clin N Am 47(3):487–512CrossRef
35.
Shields BJ, Palermo TM, Powers JD, Grewe SD, Smith GA (2003) Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 29(4):281–290CrossRef
36.
San Martin-Lopez AL, Garrigos-Esparza LD, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra JF, de Pozos-Guillen AJ (2005) Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29(3):239–243CrossRef
37.
Friedman M, Hochman M (1997) A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control. Compend Contin Educ Dent 18(10):995–1000 1002-1003; quiz 1004PubMed
38.
Primosch RE, Brooks R (2002) Influence of anesthetic flow rate delivered by the Wand local anesthetic system on pain response to palatal injections. Am J Dent 15(1):15–20PubMed
39.
Jälevik B, Klingberg G (2014) Pain sensation and injection techniques in maxillary dento-alveolar surgery procedures in children—a comparison between conventional and computerized injection techniques (the Wand). Swed Dent J 38(2):67–75PubMed
40.
Thoppe-Dhamodharan YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P (2015) Cartiridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: pain related behavior over two sequential visits- a randomized controlle trial. J Clin Exp Dent 7(4):e513–e518CrossRef
41.
Yogesh Kumar TD, John JB, Asokan S, Geetha Priya PR, Punithavathy R, Praburajan V (2015) Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 33(3):223–228CrossRef
42.
Chang H, Noh J, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC (2016) Relief of injection pain during delivery of local anesthesia by computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system for periodontal surgery: randomized clinical controlled trial. J Periodontol 87(7):783–789CrossRef
43.
Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S (2012) A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand(R) and a traditional syringe. J Indian Soc Periodontol 16(2):207–212CrossRef
44.
Ram D, Peretz B (2003) The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child (Chic) 70(2):130–133
45.
Araújo GM, Barbalho JC, Dias TG, Santos Tde S, Vasconcellos RJ, de Morais HH (2015) Comparative analysis between computed and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. J Craniofac Sur 26(8):733–736CrossRef
46.
Queiroz AM, Carvalho AB, Censi LL, Cardoso CL, Leite-Panissi CR, Silva RAB, Carvalho FK, Nelson-Filho P, Silva LAB (2015) Stress and anxiety in children after the use of computerized dental anesthesia. Braz Dent J 26(3):303–307CrossRef
47.
Nicholson JW, Berry TG, Summitt JB, Yuan CH, Witten TM (2001) Pain perception and utility: a comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques. Gen Dent 49(2):167–173PubMed
48.
Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S (2002) Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 24(4):315–320PubMed
49.
Sumer M, Misir F, Koyuturk AE (2006) Comparison of the Wand with a conventional technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101(6):e106–e109CrossRef
50.
Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O (1991) The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 13(5):278–283PubMed
51.
Donohue D, Garcia-Godoy F, King DL, Barnwell GM (1993) Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 60(2):104–106PubMed
52.
Trebus DL, Singh G, Meyer RD (1998) Anatomical basis for inferior alveolar nerve block. Gen Dent 46(6):632–636PubMed
53.
Meechan JG (2010) Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible. Dent Clin N Am 54(4):621–629CrossRef
54.
Haghighat A, Jafari Z, Hasheminia D, Samandari MH, Safarian V, Davoudi A (2015) Comparison of success rate and onset time of two different anesthesia techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20(4):e459–e463CrossRef
55.
Kincheloe JE, Mealiea WL Jr, Mattison GD, Seib K (1991) Psychophysical measurement on pain perception after administration of a topical anesthetic. Quintessence Int 22(4):311–315PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study
verfasst von
Vincenzo Campanella
Antonio Libonati
Roberto Nardi
Vincenzo Angotti
Gianni Gallusi
Edoardo Montemurro
Maurizio D’Amario
Giuseppe Marzo
Publikationsdatum
10.03.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2413-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2018

Clinical Oral Investigations 9/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Reduced salivary amylase activity in metabolic syndrome patients with obesity could be improved by treatment with a dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor

Original Article

Allogeneic bone block for challenging augmentation—a clinical, histological, and histomorphometrical investigation of tissue reaction and new bone formation

Original Article

Effectiveness and effect of non-vital bleaching on the quality of life of patients up to 6 months post-treatment: a randomized clinical trial

Original Article

Retention rates and caries-preventive effects of two different sealant materials: a randomised clinical trial

Original Article

Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction

Original Article

A randomized triple-blind crossover trial of a hydrocolloid-containing dentifrice as a controlled-release system for fluoride

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

19.04.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Werden Personen mit Vorhofflimmern in der Blanking-Periode nach einer Katheterablation gegen eine bestehende Parodontitis behandelt, verbessert dies die Erfolgsaussichten. Dafür sprechen die Resultate einer prospektiven Untersuchung.

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

11.04.2024 Endokarditis Nachrichten

Bei welchen Personen eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe zur Prävention einer infektiösen Endokarditis nach invasiven zahnärztlichen Eingriffen sinnvoll ist, wird diskutiert. Neue Daten stehen im Einklang mit den europäischen Leitlinienempfehlungen.

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

08.04.2024 Zahnmedizin Nachrichten

Der Aufbau von Geweben und Organen während der Embryonalentwicklung wird von den Zellen bemerkenswert choreografiert. Für diesen Prozess braucht es spezielle sogenannte „Organisatoren“. In einer aktuellen Veröffentlichung im Fachjournal Nature Cell Biology berichten Forschende durch welchen Vorgang diese Organisatoren im Gewebe entstehen und wie sie dann die Bildung von Zähnen orchestrieren.

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

11.03.2024 Kinderzahnmedizin Nachrichten

Infolge der Umbenennung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinderzahnheilkunde in Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderzahnmedizin (DGKiZ) wird deren Mitgliederzeitschrift Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde in Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnmedizin umbenannt. Aus diesem Grunde trägt die erste Ausgabe in 2024 erstmalig den neuen Titel.

Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise