Is the computerized dental anesthesia method more effective than the conventional method in children and adolescents? A systematic literature review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22456/2177-0018.127578Keywords:
Anesthesia, dental, Child, Dental anxiety, Pain perception, Child behaviorAbstract
Aim: To systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of the computerized method of dental anesthesia in relation to pain, non-collaborative behavior and fear/anxiety in children and adolescents compared to the conventional method. Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed in five databases (Virtual Health Library, Scopus, Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science) that included randomized clinical trials. The search was performed in October 2020 and updated in May 2021. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2 and a qualitative analysis was also performed. Results: A total of 3,518 studies were found, and after removing duplicates, analyzing the title and abstract, and complete reading, 26 studies remained included. Of these, five assessed anxiety/fear, twelve assessed behavior during anesthesia, and twenty-two assessed pain perception. No significant difference was observed in most studies between the use of the computerized method compared to the traditional method for all outcomes analyzed. Discussion: Although there does not seem to be a significant difference in pain perception, fear/anxiety reports and behavior between the use of the computerized method and the traditional method, it is fundamental to evaluate the child's behavior during dental care, as their expressions may indicate some discomfort and pain. These findings should be interpreted with caution, considering that nearly three-quarters of the included studies were at high risk of bias. Conclusion: Even with the absence of difference, electronic devices are promising, as they promote slow and controlled administration and result in safe and effective anesthesia, which is an alternative to clinical practice.
Downloads
References
Abdellatif AA, El Shahawy MA, Ahmed AI, Almarakbi WW, Alhashemi JA. Effects of local low-dose rocuronium on the quality of peribulbar anesthesia for cataract surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011 Oct;5(4):360–4.
Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM. The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(3).
Amoudi NAl, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Assessment of the anesthetic effectiveness of anterior and middle superior alveolar injection using a computerized device versus traditional technique in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;33(2):97–102.
Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A, Kotsanos N. Comparison of acceptance, preference, and efficacy between jet injection INJEX and local infiltration anesthesia in 6 to 11 year old dental patients. Anesth Prog. 2010 Mar;57(1):3–12.
Baghdadi ZD. Evaluation of electronic dental anesthesia in children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88(4):418–23.
Campanella V, Libonati A, Nardi R, Angotti V, Gallusi G, Montemurro E, et al. Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Dec;22(9):3205–13.
Ching D, Finkelman M, Loo CY. Effect of the dentalvibe injection system on pain during local anesthesia injections in adolescent patients - PubMed. Pediatr Dent. 2014;36(1):51–5.
Elbay ÜS, Elbay M, Yıldırım S, Kaya E, Kaya C, Uğurluel C, et al. Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep 1;26(5):336–45.
Elbay M, Elbay ÜŞ, Yıldırım S, Uğurluel C, Kaya C, Baydemir C. Comparison of injection pain caused by the DentalVibe Injection System versus a traditional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in paediatric patients - PubMed. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(2):123–8.
Elbay ÜŞ, Elbay M, Kaya E, Cilasun Ü. Intraligamentary and supraperiosteal anesthesia efficacy using a computer controlled delivery system in mandibular molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;40(3):193–9.
Jälevik B, Klingberg G. 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. 2014;38(2):67–75.
Kuscu OO, Akyuz S. Is it the injection device or the anxiety experienced that causes pain during dental local anaesthesia? Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008 Mar;18(2):139–45.
Melwani AM, Srinivasan I, Setty JV, Murali Krishna DR, Pamnani SS, Lalitya D. A clinical comparative study between conventional and camouflaged syringes to evaluate behavior and anxiety in 6-11-year-old children during local anesthesia administration-a novel approach. J Dent Anesth pain Med. 2018;18(1):35.
Modaresi A, Lindsay SJE, Gould A, Smith P. A partial double-blind, placebo-controlled study of electronic dental anaesthesia in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1996;6(4):245–51.
Nieuwenhuizen J, Hembrecht EJ, Aartman IHA, Krikken J, Veerkamp JSJ. Comparison of two computerised anaesthesia delivery systems: pain and pain-related behaviour in children during a dental injection. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013;14(1):9–13.
Patini R, Coviello V, Raffaelli L, Manicone PF, Dehkhargani SZ, Verdugo F, et al. Subjective pain response to two anesthetic systems in dental surgery: traditional syringe vs. a computer controlled delivery system. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Apr 1;26(2 Suppl):89–97.
Perugia C, Bartolino M, Docimo R. Comparison of single tooth anaesthesia by computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system (C-CLADS) with a supraperiosteal traditional syringe injection in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(3):221–5.
Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child (Chic). 2003 May;70(2):130–3.
Roeber B, Wallace DP, Rothe V, Salama F, Allen KD. Evaluation of the effects of the VibraJect attachment on pain in children receiving local anesthesia. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33(1):46–50.
Rosenberg ES. A computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system in a periodontal practice: patient satisfaction and acceptance. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002 Jan;14(1):39–46.
Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC. Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;19(5):360–6.
Smaïl-Faugeron V, Muller-Bolla M, Sixou JL, Courson F. Split-mouth and parallel-arm trials to compare pain with intraosseous anaesthesia delivered by the computerised Quicksleeper system and conventional infiltration anaesthesia in paediatric oral healthcare: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul;5(7):e007724.
Tung J, Carillo C, Udin R, Wilson M, Tanbonliong T. Clinical Performance of the DentalVibe® Injection system on pain perception during local anesthesia in children. J Dent Child (Chic). 2018 May 1;85(2):51–7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Mateus Costa Silveira, Yorrana Martins Corrêa, Sarah Arangurem Karam, Nathalia Ribeiro Jorge da Silva-Garcia, Marília Leão Goettems, Mariana Gonzalez Cademartori
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in this journal adhere to Creative Commons License Attributions 4.0 (CC BY 4.0), and its use must be ruled by its licensed means. Authors are allowed to agree to additional and separate contracts for the non-exclusive distribution of the article published in this journal, such as publishing in an institutional repository, as long as the article has a recognition of authorship and first publication in this journal.
