Comparision of Injection Pain Caused by Cartridge with Dental Vibe Injection System Versus a Traditional Syringe in Paediatric Patients
Authors/Creators
- 1. Professor,
- 2. Private Practice
- 3. Senior Consultant
- 4. Sr. Consultant
- 5. Associate Dentist
Description
Introduction: A current non-pharmacological mean for attaining painless local anaesthesia (LA) is presented by dental vibe devices. Their concept is to reduce injection pain due to distraction by applying physical stimuli which interfere with pain signals. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of the dental vibe (DV) device in reducing pain and anxiety associated with LA in paediatric patients. A dental cartridge for LA contains Nitrogen Bubble, 1-2mm in diameter and is present to prevent Oxygen from being trapped in the cartridge and potentially destroying the Vasopressor or vasoconstrictor, so this is the function of Nitrogen Bubble in the LA cartridge. Hence dental cartridges have their own significance in delivering LA drugs.
Methods & Analysis: The proposed study is a randomised controlled clinical trial with split-mouth design. Included are positive patients aged 7-12 years, requiring buccal and lingual infiltration for extraction of retained deciduous anterior maxilla.
Aim: The aim of the study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding the use of dental vibe with cartridges for LA by dental practitioners.
Objective: The study is done as a questionnaire survey among the practitioners in a region. The questionnaire is framed under the criteria of knowledge, attitude, preference, practice, advantages and disadvantages of dental vibe with cartridges for LA.
Results: Results shows that the knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding the use of dental vibe with cartridges for LA by dental practitioners is adequate (70%).
Conclusion: The study is concluded that vigorous dental awareness program needs to be Initiated to address this concern.
Files
COMPARISION OF INJECTION PAIN.pdf
Files
(867.1 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:79bc68805f9ab42c598c91fef45bb14f
|
867.1 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- [1] Veneva E, Cholakova R, Raycheva R, Belcheva A. Efficacy of vibrotactile device DentalVibe in reducing injection pain and anxiety during local anaesthesia in paediatric dental patients: a study protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 2;9(7):e029460. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029460. PMID: 31270121; PMCID: PMC6609117. [2]. Melzack R. Gate control theory. Pain Forum 1996;5:128–38. 10.1016/S1082-3174(96)80050-X [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Ref list] [3]. Sriram G. Advances in Local Anaesthesia : A Paediatric overview. Indian J Dent Adv 2014;6:1605–7. [Google Scholar] [Ref list] [4] Bieri D, Reeve RA, Champion GD, Addicoat L, Ziegler JB. The faces painscale for the self assessment of the severity of pain experienced bychildren: development, initial validation, and preliminary investigationfor ratio scale properties. Pain 1990;41(2):139–50 [5] Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales.PediatrNurs 1998;14(1):9–17 [6] Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Computerized anesthesiadelivery system vs. traditional syringe: comparing pain and pain-relatedbehavior in children. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113(6):488–93. [7] Dickenson AH. Gate control theory of pain stands the test of time. Br JAnaesth 2002;88(2):755–7. [8] Roeber B, Wallace DP, Rothe V, Salama F, Allen KD. Evaluation of theeffects of the VibraJect attachment on pain in children receiving localanesthesia. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(1):46–50.