Comparative evaluation of efficacy of EMLA and needleless jet anesthesia in non-surgical periodontal therapy

Efficacy of articaine anesthesia with needle-free/Comfort-in method and conventional needle injection in dental patients with irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine with the needle-free/Comfort-in™ method compared to the conventional needle method. To assess pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia and patient`s self-reported quality of life-related to oral health after the dental emergency appointment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted by a single operator/dentist in the state of Maranhao, northeast of Brazil. Included participants were adult dental patients with one molar (maxillary) or premolar (maxillary or mandibular) tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The primary outcome was the anesthetic efficacy, measured using a combination of electrical and cold pulp tests (cold + EPT) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia, and patient`s quality-of-life (measured with the OHIP-14).

RESULTS

62 patients were randomized in the anesthesia needle-free group and Comfort-in group (34.26 ± 10.786 × 33.29 ± 8.399 years old, respectively). The group of patients in the Comfort-in group had 71.0% success. Patients from the Comfort-in group reported statistically lower pain during the anesthesia application than patients from the conventional group (2.13 ± 2.172 × 6.03 ± 3.146 NRS scores, respectively) as well as immediately after the anesthetic procedure. Patients self-reported negative impact in quality of life was similar between groups before (p > 0.05) and after (p > 0.05) the dental emergency.

CONCLUSIONS

Comfort-in™ had similar efficacy to the conventional needle method.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This trial showed that it is possible to anesthetize patients with tooth pulpits without using needles to provide comfort mainly to anxious patients.

The feasibility of needleless jet injection versus conventional needle local anesthesia during dental procedures: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluates current evidence regarding the feasibility of using needleless jet injection instead of a conventional local anesthetic needle. EBSCO, ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus databases were used to identify relevant literature published in English from 2005 to 2020. Ten studies were selected. Five of them were randomized clinical trials, 3 case-control studies, and 2 equivalence trials. Using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist, 6 studies scored between 67% and 100%, and 4 studies scored between 34% and 66%. According to Jadad's scale, 2 studies were considered strong, and 8 studies were considered moderate in quality. The results of the 10 studies showed differences in patient preference for needleless jet injection. Needleless injection technique has been found to be particularly useful in uncooperative patients with anxiety and needle phobia. Needleless jet injection is not technique sensitive. However, with needleless jet anesthesia, most treatments require additional anesthesia. Conventional needle anesthesia is less costly, has a longer duration of action, and has better pain control during dental extraction. Needleless jet anesthesia has been shown to be moderately accepted by patients with a fear of needles, has a faster onset of action, and is an efficient alternative to conventional infiltration anesthesia technique.

A Comparison in Patient Comfort Using Conventional Syringe and Needleless Jet Anesthesia Technique in Periodontal Surgery—A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Background and Objectives: Periodontal surgery requires local anesthetic coverage to alleviate patient discomfort. Needles and injections can engender feelings of fear and anxiety in individuals. This study aimed to assess the level of comfort and anxiety in patients during the administration of local anesthesia using needleless jet anesthesia (JA) when compared to a conventional syringe (CS) in periodontal surgery. Method and Materials: 60 sites were designated for injection in a split-mouth design in 30 subjects who required periodontal surgery. Local anesthesia was administered in two appointments scheduled one week apart using either a JA system or a CS. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Beck’s anxiety inventory were used to report the pain and anxiety levels while injecting local anesthesia. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using the Shapiro–Wilks test and Paired t-test. Results: Patients reported greater comfort with JA. The VAS and VRS values were statistically significant—(p = 0.003) and (p = 0.001), respectively. Patients showed fear and were nervous about receiving a local anesthetic using a CS. A few subjects experienced lingering pain with the CS, whereas greater comfort and no lingering soreness were reported post-operatively at the site of JA administration. Conclusion: This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of using JA for periodontal surgical procedures. Lower pain scores were consistently observed with the use of jet injectors. Patients were at ease and reported lesser anxiety and greater comfort with jet injectors, making it ideally suited for providing local anesthesia in periodontal surgery.