Comparison of acceptance, preference and efficacy between pressure anesthesia and classical needle infiltration anesthesia for dental restorative procedures in adult patients

Abstract

Introduction:Intraoral local anesthesia is essential for delivering dental care. Needless devices have been developed to provide anesthesia without injections. Little controlled research is available on its use in dental restorative procedures in adult patients. The aims of this study were to compare adult patients acceptability and preference for needleless jet injection with classical local infiltration as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the needleless anesthesia.Materials and Methods:Twenty non fearful adults with no previous experience of dental anesthesia were studied using split-mouth design. The first procedure was performed with classical needle infiltration anesthesia. The same amount of anesthetic solution was administered using MADA jet needleless device in a second session one week later, during which a second dental restorative procedure was performed. Patients acceptance was assessed using Universal pain assessment tool while effectiveness was recorded using soft tissue anesthesia and pulpal anesthesia. Patients reported their preference for the anesthetic method at the third visit. The data was evaluated using chi square test and student's t-test.Results:Pressure anesthesia was more accepted and preferred by 70% of the patients than traditional needle anesthesia (20%). Both needle and pressure anesthesia was equally effective for carrying out the dental procedures.Conclusion:Patients experienced significantly less pain and fear (p<0.01) during anesthetic procedure with pressure anesthesia. However, for more invasive procedures needle anesthesia will be more effective.

Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial

“…One clinical trial determined that the mean pulpal anesthetic duration for the traditional technique is 50±9.32 minutes (p>0.001) with a short needle and carpule syringe, whereas the jet injection technique resulted in the lowest duration of 20±3.53 minutes (p>0.001) 25 . These results are consistent with the findings of our study.…”

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of EMLA and needleless jet anesthesia in non-surgical periodontal therapy

“…When the patients were asked about the form of anesthesia they prefer 17 patients out of 30 (56.7%) preferred EMLA, 10 patients out of 30 (33.3%) preferred Madajet XL which was in accordance with the two different studies conducted by Steenberghe DV 2 and Makade CS et al 22 Steenberghe DV 2 when compared anesthetic gel with injection anesthesia, he found that 70% of the patients preferred anesthetic gel while only 22% of the patients preferred injection anesthesia. Makade CS et al 25 when compared pressure anesthesia with traditional method of anesthesia, it was concluded that pressure anesthesia was more accepted and preferred by patients (70%) than traditional anesthesia (20%).…”

Dental local anesthesia in Family Health Units: use, pain and associated factors

“…Anesthesia has also not provided a painless treatment for most anesthetized patients. In fact, full effectiveness is in general not reported and this is why new anesthetic drugs and techniques continue to be tested 8,19 . However, the situation was more severe in cases of nonsurgical procedures, given the presence of pain during the procedure as a whole and the fact that it was more severe when anesthesia was used.…”