Published September 8, 2022 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Clinical Evaluation of Efficiency, Acceptance & Preference Between Needless Jet Injecter Anesthesia (MADAJET XL) & Classical Needle Infiltration For Dental Procedures in Pediatric Patients

Creators

  • 1. Private Practitioner
  • 2. Professor & Head
  • 3. Reader

Description

Objectives: To evaluate and compare pain perception during administration of anaesthetic solution, effectiveness and preference between needle-less jet injector and conventional infiltration technique in children.
    Materials & Methods: Sixty-five patients with mean age of 8.33 years (SD 1.58, range 6-12) were anaesthetized by needle-less jet injector and conventional needle infiltration technique in two separate appointments for invasive/noninvasive dental procedures. Pain during administration and during treatment was evaluated by Likert and Wong Baker Faces Pain Rating scale. Patients gave their preference between two anaesthetic techniques for next course of treatment in third visit. Effectiveness of each anaesthetic technique was assessed by evaluating presence and absence of pain while probing gingivae, during use of high and low speed handpiece, during extraction and pulp extirpation.
    Results: Pain perception during administration of anaesthesia was significantly less by needle-less jet injector than conventional infiltration technique (P < 0.05) and there was no significant difference in effectiveness during treatment procedures (p ˃ 0.05). Postoperative complications viz. bleeding and bad taste during administration of anaesthetic solution was higher for jet injector (60% and 33.84% respectively) than conventional infiltration (21.53% & 12.31%). A total 81.5% of subjects preferred jet injectors over conventional infiltration technique.
    Conclusion: Needle-less jet injector was perceived to be significantly less painful and preferred means of anaesthetic drug administration over conventional needle infiltration. It provided adequate anaesthesia in maxillary and mandibular teeth during all the procedures, but it was less effective in mandibular molars for invasive procedures .Thus it is suggested that needle-less jet injector can be used as supplementary to conventional infiltration technique.
 

Files

Clinical Evaluation of Efficiency1.pdf

Files (801.3 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9e4d9d0a96d96b13bff5c8e198235078
801.3 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • 1. Munshi AK, Hegde A, Bashir N. Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference using the needleless jet syringe in pediatric dental practice. J ClinPediatr Dent 2001; 25:131-6.
  • 2. Skaret E, Raadal M, Berg E, Kvale G. Dental anxiety and dental avoidance among 12-18 year olds in Norway. European Journal of Oral Sciences 1999; 107:422-8.
  • 3. Dabarakis NN, Alexander V, Tsirlis AT, Parissis NA, Nikolaos M. Needle-less local anesthesia: Clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of the jet anesthesia injex in local anesthesia in dentistry. Quintessence Int 2007; 38:572-6.
  • 4. Bennett CR, Mundell RD, Monheim LM. Studies on tissue penetration characteristics produced by jet injection. J Am Dent Assoc 1971; 83:625-9.
  • 5. Mott MG, Stevenson PA. The use of the syrijet to attain local anaesthesia in children with acute leukemia. Br J Clin Pract 1973; 27:415-6.
  • 6. Hingson RA & Hughes JG. Clinical studies with jet injections. A new method of drug administration. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1947; 12:221-230.
  • 7. Makade CS, Shenoi PR, and 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;17:169–174.
  • 8. Tomlinson D, Baeyer CLV, Stinson JN, Sung L.A systematic review of faces scales for the self-report of pain intensity in children. Pediatrics 2010; 126:1168-98.
  • 9. Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. AnesthProg 2005; 52:122-7.
  • 10. Quaba O, HuntleyJS, Bahia H, McKeown DW, A users guide for reducing the pain of local anaesthetic administration. Emerg Med J 2005; 22:188–189.
  • 11. Aberg G and Sydnes G. Studies on the duration of local anesthesia Effects of volume and concentration of a local anesthetic solution on the duration of dental infiltration anesthesia.Int. J. Oral Surg 1978; 7:141-147.
  • 12. Margetis P, Quarantillo E and Lindberg R. Jet injection of local anaesthesia in dentistry. U S Armed Forces Med J 1958;9:625-634
  • 13. Bennett CR and Monheim LM. Production of local anesthesia by jet injection. Oral Surg 1971; 32:526-530.
  • 14. Saravia ME and Bush JP. The needleless syringe: efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference in child dental patients. J ClinPediatr Dent 1991; 15:109-12.
  • 15. Oulis CJ,Vadiakas G.P, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatric Dentistry 1996; 18:301-5.
  • 16. Yonchak T, Reader A, Beck M, Clark K , Meyers WJ. Anesthetic Efficacy of Infiltrations in Mandibular Anterior Teeth. AnesthProg 2001; 48:55-60.
  • 17. Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A and Kotsanos N. Comparison of Acceptance, Preference, and Efficacy between Jet Injection INJEX and local Infiltration Anesthesia in 6 to 11 Year Old Dental Patients. AnesthProg 2010:57:3-12
  • 18. Meechan JG. The use of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in adults. JADA 2011; 142:19-24.
  • 19. Schmidt DA. Anesthesia by jet injection in the practice of pedodontics. J Dent Child 1966; 33:340-52.
  • 20. Majstorovic M, Veerkamp JS. Relationship between needle phobia and dental anxiety. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004; 71:201-5.