Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to compare an electronic device, the Wand Injection System (Milestone Scientific Livingstone), with conventional anesthesia in terms of the following: pain sensation during anesthetic injection; effectiveness in achieving adequate anesthesia for a complete painless dental treatment; post-operative discomfort; and patient’s anxiety toward dental treatment.

Materials and methods

Eighty adults from 18 to 70 years were enrolled in this cross-over study. Each patient served as his/her own control being subject to two anesthesia techniques: conventional and Single Tooth Anesthesia (STA) performed with the Wand. A split-mouth design was adopted in which each tooth undergoing conservative restorative or endodontic treatment received anesthesia with both techniques at 1-week interval. Before anesthetic administration, the patients’ anxiety levels were determined. Physiological parameteres were measured before, during, and after the two injection procedures, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain of injection, discomfort, and anesthetic efficacy. Differences in assessment of pain’s injection, discomfort, anesthetic efficacy, vital parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation), and state anxiety levels were analyzed using Student’s t test (p value < 0.001).

Results

The mean injection pain and post-operative discomfort ratings with Wand were lower than those with conventional syringe (p = 0.022 and p < 0.001, respectively). No differences were found in the assessment of anesthetic efficacy. Blood pressure and heart rate mean values were lower during the anesthesia performed with the Wand than with the conventional syringe (p < 0.001). The anxiety level was higher during the first appointment, independently from the device used for the injections.

Conclusion

The STA technique resulted in lower pain, discomfort, and lower intensity of physiological parameters.

Clinical relevance

Single Tooth Anesthesia could be an efficacious alternative to conventional procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S (1999) Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 21(7):421–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matthews DC, Rocchi A, Gafni A (2001) Factors affecting patients’ and potential patients’ choices among anaesthetics for periodontal recall visits. J Dent 29(3):173–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Overton DA, Gordon MK (2002) Injection pain of bupivacaine with epinephrine vs. prilocaine plain. J Am Dent Assoc 133(12):1652–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ballard BE (1968) Biopharmaceutical considerations in subcutaneous and intramuscular drug administration. J Pharm Sci 57(3):357–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Meechan JG, Howlett PC, Smith BD (2005) Factors influencing the discomfort of intraoral needle penetration. Anesth Prog 52(3):91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK (2012) Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 30(4):323–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Tasdemir T (2008) Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Br Dent J 205(5):E10 discussion 258-259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS (1997) Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc 128(6):756–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caprara HJ, Eleazer PD, Barfield RD, Chavers S (2003) Objective measurement of patient’s dental anxiety by galvanic skin reaction. J Endod 29(8):493–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maragakis GM, Musselman RJ (1996) The time used to administer local anesthesia to 5 and 6 year olds. J Clin Pediatr Dent 20(4):321–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC (1995) Children’s ratings of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 5(2):81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hersh EV, Houpt MI, Cooper SA, Feldman RS, Wolff MS, Levin LM (1996) Analgesic efficacy and safety of an intraoral lidocaine patch. J Am Dent Assoc 127(11):1626–1634 quiz 65-66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ram D, Hermida LB, Peretz B (2002) A comparison of warmed and room-temperature anesthetic for local anesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent 24(4):333–336

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee SH, Lee NY (2013) An alternative local anaesthesia technique to reduce pain in paediatric patients during needle insertion. Eur J Paediatr Dent 14(2):109–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghaderi F, Ghaderi R, Devermanesh M, Bayani M, Arabzade Moghadam S (2016) Pain management during needle insertion with low level laser. Eur J Peadiatr Dent 17(2):151–154

    Google Scholar 

  16. Elbay M, Şermet Elbay Ü, Yıldırım S, Uğurluel C, Kaya C, Baydemir C (2015) Comparison of injection pain caused by the DentalVibe injection system versus a traditional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in pediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent 16(2):123–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S (1997) Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. N Y State Dent J 63(7):24–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saloum FS, Baumgartner JC, Marshall G, Tinkle J (2000) A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand and a traditional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89(6):691–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Loomer PM, Perry DA (2004) Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planing. J Am Dent Assoc 135(3):358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2004) Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98(1):124–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yenisey M (2009) Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 17(5):414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Feda M, Amoudi NA, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N, Masoud I, Almushyt A (2010) A comparative study of children's pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent 34(3):217–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Singh S, Garg A (2013) Comparison of the pain levels of computer controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in supraperiosteal injections: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Acta Odont Scand 71(3–4):740–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallatin J, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) A comparison of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques in mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 34(11):1476–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Whitworth JM, Ramlee RA, Meechan JG (2005) Pressures generated in vitro during Stabident intraosseous injections. Int Endod J 38(5):291–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prohić S, Sulejmanagić H, Secić S (2005) The efficacy of supplemental intraosseous anesthesia after insufficient mandibular block. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 5:57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nusstein J, Kennedy S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 29:724–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sixou JL, Barbosa-Rogier ME (2008) Efficacy of intraosseous injections of anesthetic in children and adolescents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106(2):173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC (2009) Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseousanaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent 19(5):360–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Beneito-Brotons R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Peñarrocha MA (2012) Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 1(17(3)):426–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I (2012) A comparative evaluation of pain and anxiety levels in 2 different anesthesia techniques: locoregional anesthesia using conventional syringe versus intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system (Quicksleeper). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114(Suppl. 5):S132–S139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S (2004) The wand versus traditional injection for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: perceived pain and time of onset. Pediatr Dent 26(6):481–484

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Corah NL (1988) Dental anxiety. Assessment, reduction and increasing patient satisfaction. Dent Clin N Am 32(4):779–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Franck LS, Greenberg CS, Stevens B (2000) Pain assessment in infants and children. Pediatr Clin N Am 47(3):487–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shields BJ, Palermo TM, Powers JD, Grewe SD, Smith GA (2003) Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 29(4):281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. San Martin-Lopez AL, Garrigos-Esparza LD, Torre-Delgadillo G, Gordillo-Moscoso A, Hernandez-Sierra JF, de Pozos-Guillen AJ (2005) Clinical comparison of pain perception rates between computerized local anesthesia and conventional syringe in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29(3):239–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman M, Hochman M (1997) A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control. Compend Contin Educ Dent 18(10):995–1000 1002-1003; quiz 1004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Primosch RE, Brooks R (2002) Influence of anesthetic flow rate delivered by the Wand local anesthetic system on pain response to palatal injections. Am J Dent 15(1):15–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jälevik B, Klingberg G (2014) 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 38(2):67–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thoppe-Dhamodharan YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P (2015) Cartiridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: pain related behavior over two sequential visits- a randomized controlle trial. J Clin Exp Dent 7(4):e513–e518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yogesh Kumar TD, John JB, Asokan S, Geetha Priya PR, Punithavathy R, Praburajan V (2015) Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 33(3):223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chang H, Noh J, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC (2016) Relief of injection pain during delivery of local anesthesia by computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system for periodontal surgery: randomized clinical controlled trial. J Periodontol 87(7):783–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S (2012) A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand(R) and a traditional syringe. J Indian Soc Periodontol 16(2):207–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ram D, Peretz B (2003) The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child (Chic) 70(2):130–133

    Google Scholar 

  45. Araújo GM, Barbalho JC, Dias TG, Santos Tde S, Vasconcellos RJ, de Morais HH (2015) Comparative analysis between computed and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. J Craniofac Sur 26(8):733–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Queiroz AM, Carvalho AB, Censi LL, Cardoso CL, Leite-Panissi CR, Silva RAB, Carvalho FK, Nelson-Filho P, Silva LAB (2015) Stress and anxiety in children after the use of computerized dental anesthesia. Braz Dent J 26(3):303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nicholson JW, Berry TG, Summitt JB, Yuan CH, Witten TM (2001) Pain perception and utility: a comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques. Gen Dent 49(2):167–173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S (2002) Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 24(4):315–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sumer M, Misir F, Koyuturk AE (2006) Comparison of the Wand with a conventional technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101(6):e106–e109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O (1991) The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 13(5):278–283

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Donohue D, Garcia-Godoy F, King DL, Barnwell GM (1993) Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 60(2):104–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Trebus DL, Singh G, Meyer RD (1998) Anatomical basis for inferior alveolar nerve block. Gen Dent 46(6):632–636

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Meechan JG (2010) Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible. Dent Clin N Am 54(4):621–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Haghighat A, Jafari Z, Hasheminia D, Samandari MH, Safarian V, Davoudi A (2015) Comparison of success rate and onset time of two different anesthesia techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20(4):e459–e463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kincheloe JE, Mealiea WL Jr, Mattison GD, Seib K (1991) Psychophysical measurement on pain perception after administration of a topical anesthetic. Quintessence Int 22(4):311–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the Conservative and Endodontics Unit, Department of Clinical and Translational Medicine, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Translational Medicine, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Vincenzo Campanella, Roberto Nardi, Vincenzo Angotti, Gianni Gallusi & Edoardo Montemurro

  2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Catholic University of Our Lady of Good Counsel of Tirane, Tirana, Albania

    Antonio Libonati

  3. Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Dental Clinic, University of L’Aquila, Via Vetoio, Delta 6, 67010, Coppito, L’Aquila, Italy

    Maurizio D’Amario & Giuseppe Marzo

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Campanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Libonati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Nardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincenzo Angotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gianni Gallusi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edoardo Montemurro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maurizio D’Amario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppe Marzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio D’Amario.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Vincenzo Campanella declares that he has no conflict of interest. Antonio Libonati declares that he has no conflict of interest. Roberto Nardi declares that he has no conflict of interest. Vincenzo Angotti declares that he has no conflict of interest. Gianni Gallusi declares that he has no conflict of interest. Edoardo Montemurro declares that he has no conflict of interest. Maurizio D’Amario declares that he has no conflict of interest. Giuseppe Marzo declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campanella, V., Libonati, A., Nardi, R. et al. Single tooth anesthesia versus conventional anesthesia: a cross-over study. Clin Oral Invest 22, 3205–3213 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2413-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2413-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation