International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2015
Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Şermet Elbay Ülkü, Elbay Mesut, Yıldırım Sİnem, Kaya Emİne, Kaya Can, Uğurluel Ceren, Baydemİr Canan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of a traditional syringe (TS) and the DentalVibe (DV) Injection Comfort System on the pain of needle insertion and injection of supraperiosteal (SP) anaesthesia into the mandibles and maxillas of children aged 6-12 years.
METHODS: The study was a randomised, controlled, crossover clinical trial, comprising 60 children requiring an operative procedure with SP anaesthesia on both their mandibular and maxillary molars, bilaterally. One of the molars was treated with a TS, and the contralateral tooth was treated with the DV for both arches. On each visit, subjective and objective pain was evaluated using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale. Patients were asked which technique they preferred. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman's correlation test, and Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between TS and DV for pain during injection and needle insertion for supraperiosteal anaesthesia in either the maxillary and mandibular operative procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Children experienced similar pain during SP anaesthesia administered with a TS and the DV, regardless of gender and jaw differences. DV was less preferred over the traditional procedure in children.
METHODS: The study was a randomised, controlled, crossover clinical trial, comprising 60 children requiring an operative procedure with SP anaesthesia on both their mandibular and maxillary molars, bilaterally. One of the molars was treated with a TS, and the contralateral tooth was treated with the DV for both arches. On each visit, subjective and objective pain was evaluated using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale. Patients were asked which technique they preferred. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman's correlation test, and Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between TS and DV for pain during injection and needle insertion for supraperiosteal anaesthesia in either the maxillary and mandibular operative procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Children experienced similar pain during SP anaesthesia administered with a TS and the DV, regardless of gender and jaw differences. DV was less preferred over the traditional procedure in children.