Efficacy of lignocaine in gel and spray form during buccal infiltration anesthesia in children: a randomized clinical trial

Effectiveness of External Precooling and Vibration Induced by BUZZY on Pain and Anxiety During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection in Children

Purpose: Children's fear of the injection of local anesthetic agents affects their cooperation in pediatric dentistry. Different techniques are available to decrease the injection pain, including the use of precooling agents or vibrators. The present study investigated the effectiveness of Buzzy (Buzzy MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA). This device transfers cold and external vibration to the injection site during the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection. Materials and Methods: The present self-control, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial evaluated 30 children aged 6-12, who had bilateral mandibular permanent or primary carious molar teeth. On one side, the BUZZY was applied before and during the IANB injection, and the other side was considered as control. On both sides, a topical anesthetic gel was applied before injection. The pain severity and children's anxiety were determined using Wong-Baker, face, leg, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scales, and the heart rate. Results: The mean age of the participants was 7.18 ± 1.5 years, with 12 girls and 18 boys. The Wong-Baker scale and FLACC scale did not show any statistically significant difference between BUZZY and control (p value = 0.9 and 0.15, respectively). In addition, BUZZY tool did not significantly decrease pain and anxiety during injection, assessed through the heart rate difference (p=0.38). Conclusion: Under the limitations of the present study, a combination of precooling and vibration using the BUZZY device did not decrease pain and anxiety in children during the IANB injection.

Iontophoresis-Infused Deep Topical Anesthesia and Injectable Local Anesthesia for Dental Procedures Among Pediatric Patients: Performances and Consequences

INTRODUCTION

Exploring routes of needle-free anesthesia has drawn particular attention to the iontophoretic technique. Iontophoresis has a wide range of applications in dentistry, treating hypersensitivity, oral ulcers, non-invasive procedures of deep topical anesthesia, etc. Hence, this research was performed for a comparative assessment of topical anesthesia spray infused via iontophoresis and local anesthesia (LA) infiltration for dental procedures among 5-12-year-old patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was undertaken over two years among study subjects aged 5 to 12 years. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the first (Group A - iontophoresis group) received topical anesthesia spray (Lidayn®; Pyrax Polymers, Roorkee, India) applied by iontophoresis, and the second (Group B - LA infiltration group) received local infiltration of 2% lignocaine solution (LignoTer®; Lusture Pharma, Ahmedabad, India), where primary teeth extraction or pulpectomy was performed. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain Rating Scale (WBFPRS) was used for a subjective assessment immediately following anesthesia.

RESULTS

The mean value of current intensity for the extraction procedure was 9.43±0.95 mA, and the duration of application was 1.85±0.80 minutes. The mean value of current intensity for pulpectomy was 9.07±1.34 mA, and the time was 2.40±0.74 minutes. In inter-group comparison, WBFPRS scores were lower in Group A (1.96±1.64) compared to Group B (3.62±1.11), which was statistically significant with p=0.001.

CONCLUSION

Compared to local infiltration, iontophoresis as a non-invasive approach for topical anesthesia was more well-received by pediatric patients.

Topical Anesthesia in Pediatric Dentistry: An Update

Topical anesthetics are very important tools for improving comfort in any dental procedure in children. different methods, techniques of achieving topical anesthesia are reported in the literature. The present narrative review focuses on explaining different types of topical anesthesia with a special focus on pediatric dentistry. How to cite this article: Tirupathi S, Rajasekhar S. Topical Anesthesia in Pediatric Dentistry: An Update. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(2):240-245.

Efficacy of external cold and a vibrating device in reducing pain and anxiety during local anaesthesia

Background and Aim:

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of external cold and a vibrating device in reducing the pain and anxiety amidst children receiving maxillary infiltration anaesthesia over conventional methods.

Method:

A sum of thirty subjects aged between 5 and 10 years who had undergone dental procedures requiring maxillary infiltration were enrolled in the current split-mouth randomised control study. The control intervention constitutes infiltration of 1.8 mL of 2% lignocaine in addition to 1:100,000 adrenaline (Lox, Neon Laboratories Mumbai, India) whereas, the experimental group used external cold and a vibrating device (Buzzy®, MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) in annexation to the control protocol. Simultaneous to LA administration, pulse rate was employed as an objective measure and the subjective measure was recorded using RMS Pictorial Scale (RMS-PS) for the child’s discomfort. To document the child’s pain as anticipated by the dentist the revised face, limbs, arms, cry and consolability (FLACC-R) scale was employed.

Result:

Lower pain sensation and anxiety was recorded in the experimental group using Buzzy when compared to control.

Conclusion:

External cold in adjacent with vibrations might be efficient in lowering pain as well as anxiety in children experiencing infiltration dental anaesthesia though further research work is requisite with a larger sample size.

Effect of a Vibration System on Pain Reduction during Injection of Dental Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The ''gate control" theory suggests pain can be reduced by simultaneous activation of larger diameter nerve fibers using appropriate coldness, warmth, rubbing, pressure, or vibration. This study investigated the efficacy of a device combining cold and vibration, for needle-related procedural pain in children. Methodology. A total of 51 children aged 5-12 years participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Half of the children were in the control group and received maxillary buccal infiltration, by injecting 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 adrenaline using topical anesthesia 20% benzocaine gel for 15 seconds, while the other half were in the test group and received the same anesthesia using a commercially available external cold and a vibrating device. A face version of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used as a subjective measure to assess the child's pain experience. The parents were requested to evaluate the child's ability to tolerate pain using a behavioral/observational pain scale. Sound, Eyes, and Motor (SEM) scale and Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale were used to record the child's pain as perceived by the external evaluator. T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used for scale variables, paired sample T-test or Wilcoxon rank t-test was used for before and after data, and chi-square was used for categorical variable, based on the results of normality test.

RESULTS

The results showed a statistically significant reduction in pain after the injection for the test group compared with control using VAS scale (mean = 6.68 (1.09) and 8.42 (0.50); p=0.001) and FLACC scale (mean = 5.92 (1.05) and 8.16 (0.54); p=0.002), but not when using SEM scale (mean 3.22 (0.42) and 4.24 (2.74);p=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined external cold and vibrating devices can be an effective alternative in reducing experienced pain and fear in children undergoing infiltration dental anesthesia. This study was registered with clinical trial registry of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03953001).

DentalVibe® versus lignocaine hydrochloride 2% gel in pain reduction during inferior alveolar nerve block in children

Background

Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is the most common, painful, and anxiety-provoking procedure involving needle insertion for anesthetic solution deposition. DentalVibe® (DV) delivers vibration at a sustained frequency as a counter-stimulation to the site of injection, thereby alleviating pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of DV and lignocaine hydrochloride 2% gel (Lox 2% jelly) in pain reduction during IANB in children.

Methods

A split-mouth randomized clinical trial was designed with a sample of 60 children (age, 6 to 12 years) requiring bilateral IANB for various dental procedures; DV was used while administering IANB and Lox 2% jelly was used as the topical anesthetic before administering IANB at subsequent appointments. During both appointments, pain perception was measured using the sound, eye, motor (SEM) scale and Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS); oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and pulse rate were measured using a pulse oximeter before, during, and after the IANB procedure. The obtained values were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Wilcoxon test was used for intergroup comparison, and Friedman test, for intragroup comparison of measured variables at different treatment phases.

Results

The medians and interquartile ranges of the WBFPRS scores recorded during the IANB procedure for DV and Lox 2% jelly were 2 (2-4) and 2 (0-2), respectively (P < 0.05). The SEM scale scores, mean SpO₂, and pulse rate did not show any significant differences during the IANB procedure between both treatments.

Conclusion

Both DV and Lox 2% jelly were found to be effective in pain reduction during IANB in children.

Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Delivery of pain-free dentistry is crucial for reducing fear and anxiety, completion of treatment, and increasing acceptance of future dental treatment in children. Local anaesthetic (LA) facilitates this pain-free approach but it remains challenging. A number of interventions to help children cope with delivery of LA have been described, with no consensus on the best method to increase its acceptance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of methods for acceptance of LA in children and adolescents during dental treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019 Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 May 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 of May 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2019); and Web of Science (1900 to 24 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to 24 May 2019. There were no restrictions on language or date of publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used to increase acceptance of dental LA in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors for missing information. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 trials with 2435 randomised participants aged between 2 and 16 years. Studies were carried out between 2002 and 2019 in dental clinics in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Iran, India, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mexico, and Korea. Studies included equipment interventions (using several LA delivery devices for injection or audiovisual aids used immediately prior to or during LA delivery or both) and dentist interventions (psychological behaviour interventions delivered in advance of LA (video modelling), or immediately prior to or during delivery of LA or both (hypnosis, counter-stimulation). We judged one study to be at low risk and the rest at high risk of bias. Clinical heterogeneity of the included studies rendered it impossible to pool data into meta-analyses. None of the studies reported on our primary outcome of acceptance of LA. No studies reported on the following secondary outcomes: completion of dental treatment, successful LA/painless treatment, patient satisfaction, parent satisfaction, and adverse events. Audiovisual distraction compared to conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA with a reduction in negative behaviour when 3D video glasses where used in the audiovisual distraction group (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.50; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The wand versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain regarding the effect of the wand on pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA. Four studies reported a benefit in using the wand while the remaining studies results suggested no difference between the two methods of delivering LA (six trials, 704 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Counter-stimulation/distraction versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with children experiencing less pain when counter-stimulation was used (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 1 trial, 134 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Hypnosis versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with participants in the hypnosis group experiencing less pain (mean difference (MD) -1.79, 95% CI -3.01 to -0.57; 1 trial, 29 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons considered included pre-cooling of the injection site, the wand versus Sleeper One, the use of a camouflage syringe, use of an electrical counter-stimulation device, and video modelling acclimatisation, and had a single study each. The findings from these other comparisons were insufficient to draw any affirmative conclusions about their effectiveness, and were considered to be very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions as to the best interventions to increase acceptance of LA in children due to variation in methodology and nature/timing of outcome measures. We recommend further parallel RCTs, reported in line with the CONSORT Statement. Care should be taken when choosing outcome measures.

Effect of a relaxation training exercise on behaviour, anxiety, and pain during buccal infiltration anaesthesia in children: Randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural techniques can decrease procedural pain and anxiety in children. Bubble breath exercise, a play therapy technique, may be used as a relaxation strategy to manage anxiety and pain. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of bubble breath exercise on dental anxiety, dental behaviour, and pain intensity during buccal infiltration of local anaesthetic in children.

STUDY DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial involved 66 children aged 7-11 years, randomly allocated to two groups: Group 1 (control) and Group 2 (intervention group). Group 2 was trained in bubble breath exercise. The reaction during buccal infiltration anaesthesia was recorded in terms of behaviour (Frankl's behaviour rating scale), anxiety (Facial Image Scale and pulse rate), and pain perception (Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale and the Faces, Leg, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scale).

RESULTS

The bubble breath exercise significantly reduced the pain perceived, as measured by both the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale (P < 0.001) and the FLACC scale (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in dental anxiety and behaviour among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Use of bubble breath exercise may be beneficial in decreasing the pain perceived during maxillary buccal infiltration anaesthesia in 7- to 11-year-old children.