Computer Controlled Local Anesthesia Delivery System

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 322
Author(s):  
&NA; &NA;
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Computer Controlled Local Anesthesia Delivery: Literature Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 179
Author(s):  
Young-Jin Kim ◽  
Jun-Hyung Lee ◽  
Kang-Hee Lee ◽  
Kee-Deog Kim ◽  
Bock-Young Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Computer Controlled

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Pain Perception of Conventional and Computer-controlled Anesthesia Techniques for Extraction of Maxillary First Premolar

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 150-153
Author(s):  
Varsha Sunil Manekar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Computer Controlled ◽  
Single Blind

ABSTRACT Introduction Anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) block is a nerve block technique in conjunction with computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system. Anterior middle superior alveolar produces local anesthesia (LA) to the maxillary teeth from second premolar to the central incisor including the hard palate and corresponding soft-tissue of both buccal and palatal side, with single palatal injection. Aim To evaluate efficacy of AMSA block for extraction of maxillary first premolar. Study design In randomized single blind, split mouth clinical trial, the 14 patients received the conventional buccal-palatal (B-P) anesthesia on one side and CCLAD anesthesia AMSA for other side. The treatment consisted of bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars for orthodontics. Pain perception ratings were obtained by using 10 point visual analog scale (VAS). Results A total of 100% cases had painless injection with CCLAD, whereas 28.57% patients had painless injection experience with conventional LA. In all cases, there was no pain during extraction on both sides. With CCLAD, buccal retraction was painful in four cases whereas palatal retraction was painful in one case. Conclusion Anterior middle superior alveolar block injected with CCLAD is better as LA technique for extraction of maxillary first premolar as compared to B-P approach. How to cite this article Manekar VS. Comparison of the Pain Perception of Conventional and Computer-controlled Anesthesia Techniques for Extraction of Maxillary First Premolar. World J Dent 2015;6(3):150-153.

scholarly journals Computer-Controlled Local Anesthesia Complication: Surgical Retrieval of a Broken Dental Needle in Noncooperative Autistic Paediatric Patient

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Damian Chybicki ◽  
Małgorzata Lipczyńska-Lewandowska ◽  
Gaja Torbicka ◽  
Anna Janas-Naze
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Unusual Case ◽  
Day Surgery ◽  
Dental Instruments ◽  
Patient Cooperation ◽  
Computer Controlled ◽  
Needle Breakage ◽  
Broken Needle

The article describes an unusual case of retrieval of 8 mm fragment of a broken 30-gauge 21 mm dental needle in a 6 y.o. noncooperative autistic male patient. The needle of a computer-controlled local anesthesia device was broken during an attempt to administer local anesthetic, in order to perform conservative treatment of teeth 55 and 54 by a pedodontist. Despite the fact that the patient was under nitrous oxide sedation, an unexpected movement of the patient occurred and resulted in needle breakage. Due to the lack of patient cooperation, the surgical retrieval of a broken needle was performed under general anesthesia as part of one-day surgery procedures. The purpose of the article is to emphasize careful decision-making in proper choice of dental instruments during treatment of noncooperative paediatric patients even under sedation and to suggest dentists to carry out treatment of such patients under general anesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document