: Halenur Altan, assoc. prof.
Konya, Meram, 42090, Turkey (Türkiye)
NCT Number: NCT06606587
The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare two different injection methods in children. The main question it aims to answer is:
Is the needle-free injection method more painless than the traditional dental method?
Two different methods will be used for children to perform anesthesia for extraction permanent molars.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me6 year–16 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Konya, Meram, 42090, Turkey (Türkiye)
Study Groups and Study Design: 50 volunteer children between the ages of 6-15 who applied to Faculty of Dentistry Department of Pedodontics clinic with their parents were included in our study. Volunteer children with an indication for maxillary permanent first molar tooth extraction were randomly divided into two groups and included in the study. For randomization, methods were written on two different envelopes and the child was allowed to choose the envelope. The child was assigned to the selected method. Group Control: Application of Traditional Dental Injection Method Palatal injection; It was applied 5-10 mm below the palatal gingival margin*, on the attached gum, and with a 45-degree needle angle. After needle entry, 0.2-0.3 mL of anesthetic solution was stored when bone contact was removed (3-5 mm). 1 mL Articaine Hydrochloride (Ultracaine D-S forte, Hoechst, Canada) containing 1/100,000 epinephrine and a 27 G dental needle were used as local anesthetic agents for injections. 25 patients were included in this group and the procedure was performed. After waiting for 5 minutes, the anesthetized area was probed with the help of a probe (probing gingiva) to check whether the anesthesia had taken effect. Afterwards, buccal infiltration anesthesia was performed with the help of a traditional dental injector and tooth extraction was performed. Group Experimental: Application of Comfort-in Jet Injection Method Comfort-in jet injection method was used for palatal anesthesia of the permanent 1st molar. Using a silicone flat cap, it was placed 5 mm below the palatal gingival margin, close to the free gingiva, and with a steep angle. 0.3 ml of anesthetic solution was administered by pressing the jet injection system button. 1 mL Articaine Hydrochloride (Ultracaine D-S forte, Hoechst, Canada) containing 1/100,000 epinephrine was used as a local anesthetic agent in the injections. 25 patients were included in this group and the procedure was performed. After waiting for 2 minutes, the anesthetized area was probed with the help of a probe (probing gingiva) to check whether the anesthesia had taken effect. Afterwards, buccal infiltration anesthesia was performed with the help of a traditional dental injector and tooth extraction was performed.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Child patient between the ages of 6-16, Requiring extraction of maxillary permanent molars and premolars with bilateral palatal infiltration anesthesia, Showing "positive" and "definitely positive" behavior during examination according to the Frankl scale, Family volunteers, No medical or developmental disease
Exclusion criteria
If there are medical or developmental disorders, If there is a chronic disease, If there is an allergy to anesthetic solutions, If there is any pathology in the anesthesia area, If the Frankl scale is "negative" and "definitely negative", If the mouth opening is not sufficient, If there is no need for symmetrical treatment in the teeth
Application of Comfort-in Jet Injection Method: Comfort-in jet injection method was used for palatal anesthesia of the permanent 1st molar.
Application of Traditional Dental Injection Method: Traditional Dental Injection method was used for palatal anesthesia of the permanent 1st molar.
Time frame: Immediately after the anesthesia is administered
Pain perception was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable. Higher scores indicate greater pain intensity.
Time frame: During the administration of the palatal anesthesia injection.
Pain perception was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the highest level of pain. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes (greater pain intensity). Behavioral responses during the injection were video-recorded and later evaluated.
Necmettin Erbakan University
Other
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Comfort-In Needle-Free Injector System During Palatal Infiltrative Anesthesia in Children
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06462196
Analgesics, Anesthetics
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05615948
Agnosia, Analgesia
Brooklyn, New York, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02242968
Anti-Infective Agents, Antiviral Agents
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05284097
Ebola, Filoviridae Infections
Kambia, Sierra Leone
View Trial Details