Studies on Tissue Penetration Characteristics Produced by Jet Injection

Bennett, C. Richard; Mundell, Robert D.; Monheim, Leonard M.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0352

Cited by 38 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bennett et al in their radiographic and histologic study supported pressure anesthesia as it provides penetration and infiltration roughly comparable to that produced by needle injection to near 1 cm depth, with the use of quantities up to 0.2 ml/injection; as it is the concentration gradient of anesthetic solution diffusing into the surrounding tissue determines how much anesthetic reaches a nerve. [8] Dabarakis et al in their study found that 3% mepivacaine used with pressure anesthesia did not produced pulpal anesthesia. [7] Hence, in our study, 2% lignocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 was used with both the anesthetic techniques for completion of dental restorative procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7] The introduction of needleless injection into the clinical use in 1947 was the first change in injection technique since Alexander wood's introduction of the needle in 1853. [8] It has been used for variety of procedures in both medical and dental fields. In the year 1973, Santangelo, Mott and Stevenson reported 83% patients suffering from leukemia preferred pressure anesthesia over conventional needle anesthesia for bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9] In response to this perceived aversion, pressure anesthesia was introduced and it inspired many dentists to carry number of clinical and epidemiological studies on human and animal subjects. [281112]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bennett et al [43] studied tissue penetration characteristics in rats. Bennett et al [43] studied tissue penetration characteristics in rats.…”

Section: Pharmacokineticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

???Needle-Free??? Delivery of Local Anesthesia

Splinter

2002

Pediatric Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Needleless injection or jet injection of medication has had a rather limited clinical use in children's healthcare beyond mass vaccinations. Medications injected into children with a needle-free system include local anesthetic agents, sedatives (midazolam), and anesthetic induction agents (ketamine). Reports suggest that local discomfort is often negligible and costs are often minimal. Risks associated with this simple and flexible technique are considered to be markedly less than alternative approaches, such as syringe and needle. Further investigations are needed to confirm initial reports and establish current and other uses of jet injectors in children.

show abstract

“…The performance of the instrument in our patients has been in keeping with its excellent record of use in administering local anesthetics in medical and dental practice. 19 ' 20 It does require the usual aseptic technique in preparing it for use, inserting the vial of insulin, and wiping off the tip of the injector. In administering the insulin, the tip of the jet injector rests against the skin firmly enough to indent the tissues approximately l A inch.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%