Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Novel dental anesthetic and associated devices: a scoping review

  • Kyung Hyuk Min (Department of Oral Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology) ;
  • Zac Morse (Department of Oral Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology)
  • Received : 2024.04.03
  • Accepted : 2024.05.02
  • Published : 2024.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The efficient management of pain and discomfort is essential for successful dental treatment and patient compliance. Dental professionals are commonly evaluated for their ability to perform treatment with minimal patient discomfort. Despite advancements in traditional local dental anesthesia techniques, the pain and discomfort associated with injections remain a concern. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature on novel dental anesthetics and associated devices designed to alleviate pain and discomfort during dental procedures. The Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were used to prepare the review. Six databases and two sources of gray literature were searched. This review analyzed 107 sources from 1994 to 2023. Local anesthesia devices were grouped into computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) systems, intraosseous anesthesia (IOA), vibratory stimulation devices, and electronic dental anesthesia (EDA). CCLAD systems, particularly the Wand and Single-Tooth Anesthesia, have been the most researched, with mixed results regarding their effectiveness in reducing pain during needle insertion compared to traditional syringes. However, CCLAD systems often demonstrated efficacy in reducing pain during anesthetic deposition, especially during palatal injections. Limited studies on IOA devices have reported effective pain alleviation. Vibrating devices have shown inconsistent results in terms of pain reduction, with some studies suggesting their primary benefit is during needle insertion rather than during the administration phase. EDA devices are effective in reducing discomfort but have found limited applicability. These findings suggest that the CCLAD systems reduce injection pain and discomfort. However, the evidence for other devices is limited and inconsistent. The development and research of innovative technologies for reducing dental pain and anxiety provides opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and improved patient care in dental practice.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Mr. Andrew South for his assistance in developing the search strategy for this review.

References

  1. Al-Omari WM, Al-Omiri MK. Dental anxiety among university students and its correlation with their field of study. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572009000300013
  2. Wide Boman U, Carlsson V, Westin M, Hakeberg M. Psychological treatment of dental anxiety among adults: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Sci 2013; 121: 225-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12032
  3. Gaffen AS, Haas DA. Survey of local anesthetic use by Ontario dentists. J Can Dent Assoc 2009; 75: 649.
  4. Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Tasdemir T. Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the wand or conventional syringe. Br Dent J 2008; 205: E10.
  5. Grace EG, Barnes DM, Reid BC, Flores M, George DL. Computerized local dental anesthetic systems: patient and dentist satisfaction. J Dent 2003; 31: 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00130-6
  6. Berger SE, Baria AT. Assessing pain research: a narrative review of emerging pain methods, their technosocial implications, and opportunities for multidisciplinary approaches. Front Pain Res 2022; 3: 896276.
  7. Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Adelaide, JBI. 2020 Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
  8. Min KH, Morse Z. Novel dental anaesthestic and associated devices: a scoping review protocol. Int J Sci Rep 2022; 8: 296-300.
  9. The EndNote Team. EndNote Version X9. Clarivate; 2013.
  10. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Veritas Health Innovation. Available from www.covidence.org.
  11. Chong BS, Miller JE, Sidu SK. Alternative local anaesthetic delivery systems, devices and aids designed to minimise painful injections - a review. Endod Pract Today 2014; 8: 7-22.
  12. Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anesthesia techniques and devices: an update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013; 4: 19-24. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.117873
  13. Dubin AE, Patapoutian A. Nociceptors: the sensors of the pain pathway. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 3760-72. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI42843
  14. Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. 7th ed. St Louis, Elsevier. 2019.
  15. Bonjar S, Hashem A. Dental injection pain reducer instrument (DIPRI) with micro vibration to reduce pain and stress of injection. Res J Biol Sci 2010; 5: 94-6. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjbsci.2010.94.96
  16. Kasat V, Gupta A, Ladda R, Kathariya M, Saluja H, Farooqui AA. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) in dentistry - a review. J Clin Exp Dent 2014; 6: e562-8. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51586
  17. Franca AJB, Barbirato DDS, Vasconcellos RJH, Pellizzer EP, Moraes SLD, Vasconcelos BCDE. Do computerized delivery systems promote less pain and anxiety compared to traditional local anesthesia in dental procedures? a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 80: 620-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.11.018
  18. Nagargoje YS, Sharma G, Narula S, Kumar G, Mahla D, Mahajan N. Recent advances in local anesthesia delivery systems: a review. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2020; 8: 88-90.
  19. Goyal R, Nandlal B, Prashanth. Pain perception and procedural tolerance with computer controlled and conventional local anesthetic technique: an in vivo comparative study. Indian J Pain 2014; 28: 143-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-5333.138441
  20. Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anaesthesia using a computerised local anaesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child 2003; 70: 130-3.
  21. Hegde KM, Srinivasan I, D R MK, Melwani A, Radhakrishna S. Effect of vibration during local anesthesia administration on pain, anxiety, and behavior of pediatric patients aged 6-11 years: a crossover split-mouth study. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2019; 19: 143-9. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.3.143
  22. Romero-Galvez J, Berini-Aytes L, Figueiredo R, Arnabat-Dominguez J. A randomized split-mouth clinical trial comparing pain experienced during palatal injections with traditional syringe versus controlled-flow delivery Calaject technique. Quintessence Int 2016; 47: 797-802.
  23. Yap AU, Ong G. An introduction to dental electronic anesthesia. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 325-31.