Comparison of efficacy of photobiomodulation and topical anesthetic spray in reducing the injection pain in children aged 6-12 years - A randomized clinical trial.

Bhavana Bollepalli, Ahalya Penmetsa, Ravigna Peddi, Himavarsha Mannam, Ramalaxmi Koruprolu, Gautami S Penmetsa
{"title":"Comparison of efficacy of photobiomodulation and topical anesthetic spray in reducing the injection pain in children aged 6-12 years - A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Bhavana Bollepalli, Ahalya Penmetsa, Ravigna Peddi, Himavarsha Mannam, Ramalaxmi Koruprolu, Gautami S Penmetsa","doi":"10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_154_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local anesthesia administration is associated with pain, resulting in dental anxiety in children. Various techniques have been tried to minimize this discomfort such as topical anesthetic gel, spray, Vibration of tissue, and distraction techniques. Literature has shown lesser evidence for photobiomodulation (PBM) in pain reduction for pediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy of PBM 810 nm versus topical local anesthetic spray in reducing injection pain in children of age 6-12 years.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty-four children aged 6-12 years who visited the outpatient department, department of pediatric and preventive dentistry, requiring local anesthetic administration during invasive procedures were randomly allocated into three groups, namely Group 1 - topical spray (lignocaine hydrochloride 2%), Group 2 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 40 s), and Group 3 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 3 min). Pain was assessed subjectively and objectively using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS) and Sound-Eye-Motor (SEM) Scale, respectively. Objective and subjective pain scores were evaluated using One way ANOVA and jaw wise comparison of PBM efficacy done using independent t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean WBS scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were 3.8 ± 2.21, 1.77 ± 2.81, and 4.11 ± 3.1, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.025) between Group 1 (control) and Group 2 (PBM 40 s). However, no significant difference was found in considering SEM scores. Irrespective of bone topography, PBM was effective in reduction of injection pain, though it was not significant during local infiltration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PBM with 810 nm laser, 0.6 W for 40 s is more effective in reducing the injection pain compared to topical anesthetic spray and PBM for 3 min.</p>","PeriodicalId":101311,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","volume":"43 2","pages":"269-275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_154_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Local anesthesia administration is associated with pain, resulting in dental anxiety in children. Various techniques have been tried to minimize this discomfort such as topical anesthetic gel, spray, Vibration of tissue, and distraction techniques. Literature has shown lesser evidence for photobiomodulation (PBM) in pain reduction for pediatric patients.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of PBM 810 nm versus topical local anesthetic spray in reducing injection pain in children of age 6-12 years.

Materials and methods: Fifty-four children aged 6-12 years who visited the outpatient department, department of pediatric and preventive dentistry, requiring local anesthetic administration during invasive procedures were randomly allocated into three groups, namely Group 1 - topical spray (lignocaine hydrochloride 2%), Group 2 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 40 s), and Group 3 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 3 min). Pain was assessed subjectively and objectively using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS) and Sound-Eye-Motor (SEM) Scale, respectively. Objective and subjective pain scores were evaluated using One way ANOVA and jaw wise comparison of PBM efficacy done using independent t-test.

Results: The mean WBS scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were 3.8 ± 2.21, 1.77 ± 2.81, and 4.11 ± 3.1, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.025) between Group 1 (control) and Group 2 (PBM 40 s). However, no significant difference was found in considering SEM scores. Irrespective of bone topography, PBM was effective in reduction of injection pain, though it was not significant during local infiltration.

Conclusion: PBM with 810 nm laser, 0.6 W for 40 s is more effective in reducing the injection pain compared to topical anesthetic spray and PBM for 3 min.

光生物调节与表面麻醉喷雾减轻6-12岁儿童注射疼痛的疗效比较——一项随机临床试验。
背景:局部麻醉与疼痛有关,导致儿童牙齿焦虑。已经尝试了各种技术来减少这种不适,如局部麻醉凝胶,喷雾,组织振动和分散技术。文献显示光生物调节(PBM)在减轻儿科患者疼痛方面的证据较少。目的:比较pbm810 nm与局部局麻喷雾剂减轻6-12岁儿童注射痛的疗效。材料与方法:将54名6-12岁、在有创手术中需要局部麻醉的门诊、儿科和预防牙科患儿随机分为三组:1组-局部喷雾(盐酸利多卡因2%),2组- PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 40 s), 3组- PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 3 min)。主观上和客观上分别采用Wong-Baker面部疼痛评定量表(WBS)和声眼运动量表(SEM)进行疼痛评定。客观和主观疼痛评分采用单因素方差分析(One - way ANOVA)评估,PBM疗效的下颌比较采用独立t检验。结果:组1、组2、组3的WBS平均评分分别为3.8±2.21、1.77±2.81、4.11±3.1,组1(对照组)与组2 (PBM 40 s)比较,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.025)。然而,在考虑SEM分数时,没有发现显著差异。无论骨地形如何,PBM都能有效减少注射疼痛,但在局部浸润时效果不显著。结论:激光照射810 nm、0.6 W、持续40 s的PBM比表面麻醉喷雾照射3 min的PBM更能有效减轻注射痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信