Conventional method versus automatic injection for infiltration anesthesia in the premolar region

  • Gholamreza Shirani Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Mahnaz Arshad Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Nastaran Vaziri Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Rasoul Mehdifar Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Pain scores, Automatic injection, Infiltration anesthesia.

Abstract

Introduction: Pain control by local anesthesia plays a critical role in success of most dental treatments. Due to the unpleasant pain experience related to the use ofthe conventional syringe injection, some computerized techniques have been developed for local anesthetic injection. Thisstudy aimed to compare the pain score following infiltration anesthesia of the maxillary premolar teeth administered by the conventional syringe and automatic.Materials and Method: This single-bind randomized clinical trial was performed on 35 patients whose average age was 38. Requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary premolars. The patients’ dental anxiety was scored and they received infiltration anesthesia with the iCT injection SE (Dentium, South Korea) at one side and conventional syringe at the contralateral side. The pain level was recorded during needle insertion, anesthetic delivery and 5 hours after the injection using visual analog scale (VAS) and the face rating scale (FRS). The data were subjected to Wilcoxonsigned-rank test.Results: Significant differences were found between the automatic and conventional method sregarding pain scores duringneedle insertion (P<0.01) and anesthetic delivery (P<0.0001) while nosignificant differences were notedat 5 hours after the injection. Pain scores were significantly lower during supra-periosteal injections in the maxillary premolar region using iCT injection.Conclusion: Both FRS and VAS in iCT injection showed that frequency of severe pain during needle insertion and anesthetic delivery was noticeably lower than that in conventional injectionmethod but findings revealed that there was no significant difference between these two technics after 5 hours of injection.Keywords: Pain scores, Automatic injection, Infiltration anesthesia.
Published
2018-04-22
How to Cite
1.
Shirani G, Arshad M, Vaziri N, Mehdifar R. Conventional method versus automatic injection for infiltration anesthesia in the premolar region. jcr. 5(1):19-6.
Section
Original Article(s)