不同类型注射系统的临床评价和儿科患者腭麻醉疼痛接受度的比较:一项随机对照口裂研究。

IF 1.2
Halenur Altan, Büşra Almas
{"title":"不同类型注射系统的临床评价和儿科患者腭麻醉疼痛接受度的比较:一项随机对照口裂研究。","authors":"Halenur Altan, Büşra Almas","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local dental anesthesia is the most commonly used method for eliminating pain during dental treatment. Palatal injections, which are routinely used to extract deciduous molars, may be poorly tolerated by pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain acceptance and anesthetic efficacy of the Comfort-In needle-free injection compared with the traditional injection method in upper deciduous molars requiring extraction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients between the ages of 4 and 10 years who were admitted to our clinic and required extraction of their maxillary deciduous molars under local anesthesia were included in our study. Infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental injector was applied to one of the symmetrical teeth, and a Comfort-in jet injection system was applied to the other. The Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C) anxiety scale was administered to children. The Wong-Baker Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales were applied to the children during the injection. The physiological parameters of the children were evaluated using pulse oximetry. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23 software (SPSS Inc., IBM Co., Somers, NY, USA). The significance level was set at P < 0.050.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was observed between Comfort-In jet injection and conventional dental anesthesia in terms of Frankl scores (P = 0.180), pulse rate (P = 0.569), oxygen saturation (P = 0.615), and FLACC total values (P = 0.082). IDAF-4C anxiety levels were low in most of the included children. The categorical distribution of the WBPRS showed a statistically significant difference according to the method used (P = 0.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We concluded that the Comfort-In jet injection system is as effective as the gold standard of infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental syringe and that the Comfort-In jet injection system is acceptable to patients in the postoperative period. Needle-free jet injection is a promising alternative to palatal needle injection for palatal infiltration anesthesia in the maxillary first molars.</p>","PeriodicalId":94330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"25 3","pages":"191-199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160027/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical evaluation of different types of injection systems and comparison of pain acceptance in palatal anesthesia in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled split-mouth study.\",\"authors\":\"Halenur Altan, Büşra Almas\",\"doi\":\"10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local dental anesthesia is the most commonly used method for eliminating pain during dental treatment. Palatal injections, which are routinely used to extract deciduous molars, may be poorly tolerated by pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain acceptance and anesthetic efficacy of the Comfort-In needle-free injection compared with the traditional injection method in upper deciduous molars requiring extraction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients between the ages of 4 and 10 years who were admitted to our clinic and required extraction of their maxillary deciduous molars under local anesthesia were included in our study. Infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental injector was applied to one of the symmetrical teeth, and a Comfort-in jet injection system was applied to the other. The Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C) anxiety scale was administered to children. The Wong-Baker Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales were applied to the children during the injection. The physiological parameters of the children were evaluated using pulse oximetry. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23 software (SPSS Inc., IBM Co., Somers, NY, USA). The significance level was set at P < 0.050.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was observed between Comfort-In jet injection and conventional dental anesthesia in terms of Frankl scores (P = 0.180), pulse rate (P = 0.569), oxygen saturation (P = 0.615), and FLACC total values (P = 0.082). IDAF-4C anxiety levels were low in most of the included children. The categorical distribution of the WBPRS showed a statistically significant difference according to the method used (P = 0.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We concluded that the Comfort-In jet injection system is as effective as the gold standard of infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental syringe and that the Comfort-In jet injection system is acceptable to patients in the postoperative period. Needle-free jet injection is a promising alternative to palatal needle injection for palatal infiltration anesthesia in the maxillary first molars.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 3\",\"pages\":\"191-199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160027/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:局部牙麻醉是牙科治疗中最常用的止痛方法。通常用于提取乳牙的腭注射,可能对儿科患者的耐受性较差。本研究的目的是比较Comfort-In无针注射与传统注射方法在需要拔牙的上乳牙的疼痛接受度和麻醉效果。方法:选取4 ~ 10岁的上颌乳牙局部麻醉拔牙患者作为研究对象。其中一颗对称牙采用传统牙科注射器浸润麻醉,另一颗对称牙采用Comfort-in喷射注射系统。采用牙科焦虑与恐惧指数(IDAF-4C)焦虑量表。注射时采用Wong-Baker疼痛评定量表(WBPRS)和面部、腿部、活动、哭泣、安慰(FLACC)量表。采用脉搏血氧仪测定患儿的生理参数。数据分析采用IBM SPSS V23软件(SPSS Inc., IBM Co., Somers, NY, USA)。显著性水平为P < 0.050。结果:Comfort-In喷注与常规牙麻在Frankl评分(P = 0.180)、脉搏率(P = 0.569)、血氧饱和度(P = 0.615)、FLACC总分(P = 0.082)方面均无显著差异。大多数纳入的儿童的IDAF-4C焦虑水平较低。WBPRS的分类分布差异有统计学意义(P = 0.022)。结论:我们认为Comfort-In喷射注射系统与传统牙科注射器浸润麻醉的金标准一样有效,并且术后患者可以接受Comfort-In喷射注射系统。无针喷射注射是上颌第一磨牙腭浸润麻醉的一种有前途的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical evaluation of different types of injection systems and comparison of pain acceptance in palatal anesthesia in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled split-mouth study.

Background: Local dental anesthesia is the most commonly used method for eliminating pain during dental treatment. Palatal injections, which are routinely used to extract deciduous molars, may be poorly tolerated by pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain acceptance and anesthetic efficacy of the Comfort-In needle-free injection compared with the traditional injection method in upper deciduous molars requiring extraction.

Methods: Patients between the ages of 4 and 10 years who were admitted to our clinic and required extraction of their maxillary deciduous molars under local anesthesia were included in our study. Infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental injector was applied to one of the symmetrical teeth, and a Comfort-in jet injection system was applied to the other. The Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C) anxiety scale was administered to children. The Wong-Baker Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales were applied to the children during the injection. The physiological parameters of the children were evaluated using pulse oximetry. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23 software (SPSS Inc., IBM Co., Somers, NY, USA). The significance level was set at P < 0.050.

Results: No significant difference was observed between Comfort-In jet injection and conventional dental anesthesia in terms of Frankl scores (P = 0.180), pulse rate (P = 0.569), oxygen saturation (P = 0.615), and FLACC total values (P = 0.082). IDAF-4C anxiety levels were low in most of the included children. The categorical distribution of the WBPRS showed a statistically significant difference according to the method used (P = 0.022).

Conclusions: We concluded that the Comfort-In jet injection system is as effective as the gold standard of infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental syringe and that the Comfort-In jet injection system is acceptable to patients in the postoperative period. Needle-free jet injection is a promising alternative to palatal needle injection for palatal infiltration anesthesia in the maxillary first molars.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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