Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Berlin ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
Mike Beck ◽  
Joel Weaver
Keyword(s):  
Delivery System ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Computer Controlled

scholarly journals Assessment of computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system for pain control during restorative procedures: A randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-304
Author(s):  
Hrishikesh Saoji ◽  
Mohan Thomas Nainan ◽  
Naveen Nanjappa ◽  
Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar ◽  
Meeta Hishikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Conventional Group ◽  
Lower Pain ◽  
Computer Controlled ◽  
Recovery From Anesthesia ◽  
Time Required

Background. Local anesthesia is given to decrease pain perception during dental treatments, but it may itself be a reason for pain and aggravate the dental fear. Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS) is one of the alternatives for decreasing the patients’ pain during local anesthesia. This study compared the time required for the recovery from anesthesia, pain/discomfort during injection and pain/discomfort 24 hours after administering local anesthesia with CCLADS, a standard self-aspirating syringe and a conventional disposable 2-mL syringe. Methods. The study was conducted on 90 subjects (an age group of 20-40 years), who suffered from sensitivity during cavity preparation. They were randomly divided into three groups of 30 individuals each to receive intraligamentary anesthesia (2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) using either of the three techniques: CCLADS, a standard self-aspirating syringe, or a conventional disposable 2-mL syringe. The onset of anesthesia, time required for recovery from anesthesia (in minutes), pain/discomfort during injection and pain/discomfort 24 hours after administering local anesthesia were recorded. Results. The time required for the onset of anesthesia and recovery from anesthesia was shorter with CCLADS (4.83±2.31 and 34.2±1.895, respectively) as compared to the standard self-aspirating group (10.83±1.90 and 43.5±7.581, respectively) and the conventional group (11.00±2.03 and 43.5±6.453, respectively) (P<0.001). The patients in the CCLADS group experienced no pain during local anesthesia administration as compared to the patients in the self-aspirating and conventional groups. The CCLADS and self-aspirating groups showed lower pain response as compared to the conventional group for pain after 24 hours. Conclusion. CCLADS can be an effective and pain-free alternative to conventional local anesthetic procedures.

Assessment of the Anesthetic Effectiveness of Anterior and Middle Superior Alveolar injection Using a Computerized Device versus Traditional Technique in Children

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Najlaa Al Amoudi ◽  
May Feda ◽  
Aly Sharaf ◽  
Azza Hanno ◽  
Najat Farsi
Keyword(s):  
Delivery System ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Traditional Technique ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Computer Controlled ◽  
Single Blind

The study aims to evaluate the anesthetic effectiveness of the Anterior and Middle Superior Alveolar (AMSA)injection administered through a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD), and compare it with the traditional buccal and palatal injections used to anesthetize maxillary primary molars.Materials and methods: the sample included 80 primary maxillary molars, divided into 2 equal groups:Pulpotomy and extraction groups. Each group was divided equally into 4 subgroups: A. First molars anesthetized with the traditional technique, B. first molars anesthetized with the CCLAD, C. second molars anesthetized with the traditional technique, and D. second molars anesthetized with the CCLAD. The evaluation was done single blind using SEM scale. Results: the AMSA injection with the CCLAD was found to be effective in anesthetizing maxillary primary molars in pulpotomy and extraction procedures. There was no significant difference between the two anesthetic techniques except in the step of gingival retraction buccally in, which the traditional injections were more effective than the CCLAD during extractions. No significant difference was found between first and second primary molars in the effectiveness of both techniques. Conclusion:the AMSA injection using CCLAD was found to be effective in children.

Intraligamentary and Supraperiosteal Anesthesia Efficacy Using a Computer Controlled Delivery System in Mandibular Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ülkü Şermet Elbay ◽  
Mesut Elbay ◽  
Emine Kaya ◽  
Ülkem Cilasun
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Needle Insertion ◽  
Controlled Delivery ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mandibular Molars ◽  
Computer Controlled ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare pain, efficacy and postoperative complications of anesthesia in first primary mandibular molars anesthetized with either intraligamentary (IL) or supraperiosteal (SP) anesthesia using a computer-controlled delivery system (CCDS). Study design: This randomized, controlled-crossover, blind clinical trial was conducted with 90 children requiring bilateral extraction, pulpotomy or restorative treatment of first mandibular primary molars. A CCDS was used to deliver IL anesthesia to 1 deciduous tooth and SP anesthesia to the contralateral tooth in each patient. Severity of pain and efficacy of anesthesia during the treatments were evaluated using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (PRS) and comfort and side effects were assessed using post-injection and post-treatment questionnaires. Data were analyzed using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: According to PRS scores, pain levels during extraction were significantly higher with IL when compared to SP. Patients reported significantly less pain during needle insertion with SP when compared to IL; however, rates of postoperative complications were significantly higher with SP when compared to IL. Conclusions: CCDS-administered IL anesthesia and SP anesthesia were similarly effective when used during restorative treatment and pulpotomy of primary mandibular molars; however, SP was more effective than IL when used during extraction procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document