Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children: A review of clinical considerations

  • Baghlaf, Khlood (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University) ;
  • Elashiry, Eman (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University) ;
  • Alamoudi, Najlaa (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University)
  • Received : 2018.06.13
  • Accepted : 2018.07.09
  • Published : 2018.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Pain control by means of local anesthesia is an intrinsic part of clinical practice in dentistry. Several studies evaluated intraligamental anesthesia using a computer-controlled anesthetic device in children. There is a need to provide a clinical guide for the use of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children. Intraligamental anesthesia using a computer-controlled anesthetic device was found to cause significantly lower pain perception scores and lower pain-related behavior than traditional techniques. This device proven to be effective in restorative and pulp treatment in children; however, its effectiveness in primary teeth extraction is controversial. It is important to withdraw recommendations necessity of future studies concerning the side effects of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children. The present study aims to review different clinical aspects of computerized intraligamental anesthesia in children along with the side-effects, type of local anesthesia and postoperative pain of this technique. This study provides dentists with a clinical guide for the use of computerized intraligamental anesthesia.

Keywords

References

  1. Fischer G, Riethmueller RH. Local Anesthesia in Dentistry. Lea & Febiger; 1912.
  2. Blanton PL, Jeske AH. Dental local anesthetics: alternative delivery methods. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 228-34. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0140
  3. Hochman MN. Single-tooth anesthesia: pressure-sensing technology provides innovative advancement in the field of dental local anesthesia. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007; 28: 186-8, 190, 192-3.
  4. Amoudi NA, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Assessment of the anesthetic effectiveness of anterior and middle superior alveolar injection using a computerized device versus traditional technique in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008; 33: 97-102. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.33.2.d666m2l43334274p
  5. Feda M, Al Amoudi N, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N, Masoud I, et al. A comparative study of children's pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010; 34: 217-22. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.34.3.3201l74255560520
  6. Mittal M, Kumar A, Srivastava D, Sharma P, Sharma S. Pain perception: computerized versus traditional local anesthesia in pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 39: 470-4. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.470
  7. Versloot J, Veerkamp J, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J 2008; 205: E2. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.414
  8. Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child 2003; 70: 130-3.
  9. Klein U, Hunzeker C, Hutfless S, Galloway A. Quality of anesthesia for the maxillary primary anterior segment in pediatric patients: Comparison of the P-ASA nerve block using compumed delivery system vs traditional supraperiosteal injections. J Dent Child 2005; 72: 119-25.
  10. Kandiah P, Tahmassebi JF. Comparing the onset of maxillary infiltration local anaesthesia and pain experience using the conventional technique vs. the Wand in children. Br Dent J 2012; 213: E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.988
  11. Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM. The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 799-806.
  12. Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM. The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: A randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 2016; 47: 217-24.
  13. Elbay US, Elbay M, Kaya E, Cilasun U. Intraligamentary and supraperiosteal anesthesia efficacy using a computer controlled delivery system in mandibular molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40: 193-9. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-40.3.193
  14. Oztas N, Ulusu T, Bodur H, Dogan C. The Wand in pulp therapy: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Quintessence Int 2005; 36: 559-64.
  15. Ram D, Kassirer J. Assessment of a palatal approachanterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) nerve block with the $Wand^{(R)}$ in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16: 348-51.
  16. Kim S. Ligamental injection: A physiological explantation of its efficacy. J Endod 1986; 12: 486-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(86)80204-7
  17. Kaufman E, Weinstein P, Milgrom P. Difficulties in achieving local anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 108: 205-8. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1984.0470
  18. Malamed SF. The periodontal ligament (PDL) injection: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982; 53: 117-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(82)90273-0
  19. Davidson L, Craig S. The use of the periodontal ligament injection in children. J Dent 1987; 15: 204-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(87)90110-2
  20. Krochak M, Friedman N. Using a precision-metered injection system to minimize dental injection anxiety. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998; 19:137-40, 142-3, 146.
  21. Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anesthesia techniques and devices: An update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013; 4: 19-24. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.117873
  22. Thoppe-Dhamodhara YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P. Cartridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: Pain related behaviour over two sequential visits-a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: e513-8.
  23. Garret-Bernardin A, Cantile T, D'Anto V, Galanakis A, Fauxpoint G, Ferrazzano GF, et al. Pain Experience and Behavior Management in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparison between Traditional Local Anesthesia and the Wand Computerized Delivery System. Pain Res Manag 2017; 2017: 7941238.
  24. Brannstrom M, Nordenvall K, Hedstrom K. Periodontal tissue changes after intraligamentary anesthesia. ASDC J Dent Child 1982; 49: 417.
  25. Ashkenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effect of computerized delivery intraligamental injection in primary molars on their corresponding permanent tooth buds. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010; 20: 270-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01049.x
  26. Nusstein JM, Reader A, Drum M. Local anesthesia strategies for the patient with a "hot" tooth. Dent Clin 2010; 54: 237-47.
  27. Shabazfar N, Daublander M, Al-Nawas B, Kammerer P. Periodontal intraligament injection as alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block-meta-analysis of the literature from 1979 to 2012. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 351-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1113-1
  28. Allard G, Stokes T. Continuous observation: a detailed record of children's behavior during dental treatment. ASDC J Dent Child 1980; 47: 246.

Cited by

  1. Lingual anesthesia of the lower anterior teeth, which technique is better? vol.23, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00787-w