Journal of Research in Dental
and Maxillofacial Sciences
Volume 11, Issue 1 (3-2026)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026, 11(1): 31-44 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1404.004
Clinical trials code: IRCT20240807062679N1
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Molaasadolah F, Soltani M, Jafarian M. Clinical Efficacy and Pain of Computer-Controlled Intraosseous Anesthesia versus the Conventional Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Pulpotomy of Primary Molars: A Clinical Trial. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026; 11 (1) :31-44
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1201-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-1201-en.html
1- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. ,soltanimansooreh5@sbmu.ac.ir
3- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (42 Views)
Background and Aim: This study assessed the efficacy of intraosseous anesthesia (IA) administered by a computer-controlled local anesthetic device (CCLAD) and its associated pain in comparison with the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for pulpotomy of primary molars.
Materials and Methods: This crossover split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 30 children between 4 and 6 years requiring pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars bilaterally. The children were randomly assigned to two groups to receive IA and IANB in two orders of IA/IANB and IANB/IA within two treatment sessions. Pain during injection and during treatment was quantified subjectively using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and objectively using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Heart rate (HR) was measured by a pulse oximeter, and the need for supplemental injection was recorded. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Bonferroni, Fisher’s exact, and McNemar tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: Injection type had no significant effect on the HR in the first or second treatment session, injection pain, procedural pain, FLACC score, or the need for supplemental injection (P>0.05). Within-group comparison of pain in the IA/IANB group showed significantly higher pain associated with IANB (P=0.015), while this difference was not significant in the IANB/IA group (P>0.05). Primary first and second molars had no significant difference in FLACC score or the need for supplemental injection (P>0.05).
Conclusion: IA may be used as an alternative to IANB for pulpotomy of primary molars, due to comparable efficacy and injection pain.
Materials and Methods: This crossover split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 30 children between 4 and 6 years requiring pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars bilaterally. The children were randomly assigned to two groups to receive IA and IANB in two orders of IA/IANB and IANB/IA within two treatment sessions. Pain during injection and during treatment was quantified subjectively using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and objectively using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Heart rate (HR) was measured by a pulse oximeter, and the need for supplemental injection was recorded. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Bonferroni, Fisher’s exact, and McNemar tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: Injection type had no significant effect on the HR in the first or second treatment session, injection pain, procedural pain, FLACC score, or the need for supplemental injection (P>0.05). Within-group comparison of pain in the IA/IANB group showed significantly higher pain associated with IANB (P=0.015), while this difference was not significant in the IANB/IA group (P>0.05). Primary first and second molars had no significant difference in FLACC score or the need for supplemental injection (P>0.05).
Conclusion: IA may be used as an alternative to IANB for pulpotomy of primary molars, due to comparable efficacy and injection pain.
Type of Study: Randomized Clinical Trial |
Subject:
pediatric
References
1. Dentistry AAoP. Behavior guidance for the paediatric dental patient. The reference manual of pediatric dentistry Chicago: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. 2021.
2. Furgała D, Markowicz K, Koczor-Rozmus A, Zawilska A. Causes and severity of dentophobia in Polish adults-A questionnaire study. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jun;9(7):819. [DOI:10.3390/healthcare9070819] [PMID] []
3. Schmoeckel J, Mustafa Ali M, Wolters P, Santamaría RM, Usichenko TI, Splieth CH. Pain perception during injection of local anesthesia in pedodontics. Quintessence Int. 2021 Jul;52(8):706-12.
4. Pozos-Guillén A, Loredo-Cruz E, Esparza-Villalpando V, Martínez-Rider R, Noyola-Frías M, Garrocho-Rangel A. Pain and anxiety levels using conventional versus computer-controlled local anesthetic systems in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020 Dec;44(6):371-99. [DOI:10.17796/1053-4625-44.6.1] [PMID]
5. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Use of local anesthesia for pediatric dental patients. The reference manual of pediatric dentistry. 2020:332-7.
6. Bagher SM, Felemban OM, Alsabbagh GA, Aljuaid NA. The effect of using a camouflaged dental syringe on children's anxiety and behavioral pain. Cureus. 2023 Dec;15(12):e50023. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.50023]
7. Garcia J, Kratunova E, Shah A, Zhang IL, Marion I, da Fonseca MA, et al. Articaine infiltration versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for primary mandibular molars: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Pediatr Dent. 2023 Jul;45(4):299-306.
8. Aquilanti L, Mascitti M, Togni L, Contaldo M, Rappelli G, Santarelli A. A systematic review on nerve-related adverse effects following mandibular nerve block anesthesia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan;19(3):1627. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph19031627] [PMID] []
9. Bagattoni S, D'Alessandro G, Gatto MR, Piana G. Self-induced soft-tissue injuries following dental anesthesia in children with and without intellectual disability. A prospective study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020 Oct;21(5):617-22. [DOI:10.1007/s40368-019-00506-9] [PMID]
10. Altan H, Belevcikli M, Coşgun A, Demir O. Comparative evaluation of pain perception with a new needle-free system and dental needle method in children: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021 Dec;21(1):301. [DOI:10.1186/s12871-021-01524-1] [PMID] []
11. Anil Ö, Keskin G. Comparison of computer controlled local anesthetic delivery and traditional injection regarding disruptive behaviour, pain, anxiety and biochemical parameters: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Jan;48(1):120-7.
12. Feridoz J, Raj JD. Intraosseous anesthesia in dentistry-A review. Drug Invent Today. 2018 Oct;10.
13. Carugo N, Paglia L, Re D. Pain perception using a computer-controlled anaesthetic delivery system in paediatric dentistry: A review. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Sep;21(3):180-2.
14. Janik K, Niemczyk W, Peterek R, Rój R, Balicz A, Morawiec T. Computer-controlled local anaesthesia delivery efficacy - a literature review. Saudi Dent J. 2024 Aug;36(8):1066-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.05.012] [PMID] []
15. Libonati A, Nardi R, Gallusi G, Angotti V, Caruso S, Coniglione F, et al. Pain and anxiety associated with computer-controlled local anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-over studies. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Dec;19(4):324-32.
16. Smaïl-Faugeron V, Muller-Bolla M, Sixou JL, Courson F. Evaluation of intraosseous computerized injection system (QuickSleeper™) vs conventional infiltration anaesthesia in paediatric oral health care: A multicentre, single-blind, combined split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019 Sep;29(5):573-84. [DOI:10.1111/ipd.12494] [PMID]
17. Henedy SS, Khalil AM, Mahmoud SH, El-Habashy LM. The effect of different parenting styles on the child behavior during the dental visit: observational longitudinal study. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Mar;25(1):342. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-025-05659-2] [PMID] []
18. Alovisi M, Baldi A, Comba A, Gamerro R, Paolone G, Mandurino M, et al. Long-term evaluation of pulp vitality preservation in direct and indirect pulp capping: A retrospective clinical study. J Clin Med. 2024 Jul;13(13):3962. [DOI:10.3390/jcm13133962] [PMID] []
19. DENTAL HI TEC QuickSleeper5 User Manual. Available at: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1658548/Dental-Hi-Tec-Quicksleeper5.html.
20. Shekhar S, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A, Rao A. Effect of active and passive distraction techniques while administering local anaesthesia on the dental anxiety, behaviour and pain levels of children: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022 Jun;23(3):417-27. [DOI:10.1007/s40368-022-00698-7] [PMID] []
21. Nagarwal P, Rana V, Srivastava N, Kaushik N, Pruthi T. Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2023 Apr-Jun;41(2):126-32. [DOI:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_132_23] [PMID]
22. Pizzinato A, Liguoro I, Pusiol A, Cogo P, Palese A, Vidal E. Detection and assessment of postoperative pain in children with cognitive impairment: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pain. 2022 May;26(5):965-79. [DOI:10.1002/ejp.1936] [PMID] []
23. Deshpande N, Jadhav A, Bhola N, Gupta M. Anesthetic efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline and 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline as a single buccal injection in the extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic purposes. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;20(4):233-40. [DOI:10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.233] [PMID] []
24. Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021 Feb;31(1):010502. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2021.010502] [PMID] []
25. Monteiro J, Tanday A, Ashley PF, Parekh S, Alamri H. Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb;2(2):CD011024. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011024.pub2] [PMID]
26. Shi D, Ye T. Behavioral carry-over effect and power consideration in crossover trials. Biometrics. 2024 Mar;80(2):ujae023. [DOI:10.1093/biomtc/ujae023] [PMID] []
27. Shekhar V, Choudhary N, Rathore P, Singh SP, Bhatnagar S. Non-invasive objective markers to measure pain: A direction to develop a pain device - A narrative review. Indian J Palliat Care. 2023 Apr-Jun;29(2):217-22. [DOI:10.25259/IJPC_257_2022] [PMID] []
28. AlRaddadi ZA, AlHowaish LA, Sulimany AM. Pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with intraosseous local anesthesia (QuickSleeper 5®) in pediatric patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Children (Basel). 2025 Jan;12(1):65. [DOI:10.3390/children12010065] [PMID] []
29. Prol Castelo A, García Mato E, Varela Aneiros I, Sande López L, Outumuro Rial M, Abeleira Pazos MT, et al. Evaluation of intraligamentous and intraosseous computer-controlled anesthetic delivery systems in pediatric dentistry: A randomized controlled trial. Children (Basel). 2022 Dec;10(1):79. [DOI:10.3390/children10010079] [PMID] []
30. Dixit A, Randhawa RK, Randhawa GS, Solanki P, Takvani R, Vaghela I. Comparative analysis of local anesthetic techniques for pain management in pediatric dental procedures: A randomized clinical trial. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Feb;16(Suppl 1):S196-8. [DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_454_23] [PMID] []
31. Dixit UB, Joshi AV. Efficacy of intraosseous local anesthesia for restorative procedures in molar incisor hypomineralization-affected teeth in children. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Sep;9(Suppl 2):S272-7. [DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_252_18] [PMID] []
32. Vatankhah M, Dianat O, Zargar N, Bejestani SG, Baghban AA, Shojaeian S. Efficacy of QuickSleeper intraosseous injection of 4% articaine in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized controlled trial. Anesth Prog. 2024 Sep;71(3):123-30. [DOI:10.2344/363591] [PMID] []
33. Mathison M, Pepper T. Local Anesthesia Techniques in Dentistry and Oral Surgery. 2023 Jun 1. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan.
34. AlRaddadi ZA, AlHowaish LA, Sulimany AM. Effectiveness of intraosseous local anesthesia (QuickSleeper 5) during pulpotomy and stainless steel crown placement on mandibular primary molars: A crossover randomized controlled clinical trial. Children (Basel). 2025 Feb;12(3):294. [DOI:10.3390/children12030294] [PMID] []
35. Zhang D, Li S, Zhang R. Effects of dental anxiety and anesthesia on vital signs during tooth extraction. BMC Oral Health. 2024 May;24(1):632. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04404-5] [PMID] []
36. Turan Y, Senirkentli GB, Cekmen N, Tirali E, Çakmak E. Retrospective evaluation of the effects of local anesthesia before tooth extraction procedures under general anesthesia on physiologic parameters and postoperative bleeding in children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2024 Jun;27(6):723-31. [DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_708_23] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |