Efficiency of Single Buccal Infiltration Versus Buccal and Intrapapillary Infiltration

NCT ID: NCT04458142

Last Updated: 2020-07-07

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

25 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-10-01

Study Completion Date

2021-03-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Everyday practice in dentistry is based on giving the painless injection and achieving adequate local anesthesia. Various techniques of reducing injection pain in children can be broadly categorized as psychological and physical. The psychological approach includes behavior management techniques, physical means and other recent techniques such as computer controlled anesthesia, electronic dental anesthesia, and so forth. However, none of these techniques have been successful in eliminating pain, fear and anxiety in children.

Direct palatal injection technique is difficult to administer without significant pain or discomfort since there is little tissue space at these sites between the mucosa and the underlying periosteum. Studies conducted on indirect palatal injection technique (intrapapillary) revealed that it reduces the pain of palatal injection with the same efficacy of anesthesia during extraction.

The desirable method to evade pain during palatal injection is just not to have one.

Maxillary molars removal without palatal or multiple injections is possible due to relatively thin porous bone of posterior buccal maxilla that facilitates the diffusion of local anesthetic.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The provision of intraoral palatal anesthesia can be potentially more painful for the patient when compared to other sites of the oral cavity, as palatal tissues are tightly bound to the hard palate with limited tissue space between it and the periosteum . As the injection is given, pressure builds up within the palatal tissues causing pain.

Studies conducted on indirect palatal injection technique (intrapapillary) revealed that it reduces the pain of palatal injection with the same efficacy of anesthesia during extraction.

The desirable method to evade pain during palatal injection is just not to have one. So studies was made to evaluate the single buccal injection and its efficiency during extraction of maxillary teeth. The relatively thin porous bone of posterior buccal maxilla facilitates the diffusion of local anesthetic,as well as articaine can diffuse through soft and hard tissues more reliably than other LA so that maxillary buccal infiltration of articaine provides palatal soft tissue anesthesia.Therefore single injection eliminates the need for multiple painful injections.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Anesthesia, Local

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Single buccal infiltration using 4%articaine

Dryness the site of injection then application of topical anesthetic gel(2% benzocaine).

Injecting by a small amount of solution in the superficial mucosa. After a few seconds, the needle was slowly advanced in the mucobuccal fold toward the apex of the molar and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine using short 30-gauge needle was slowly given.

Subjective assessment of buccal and palatal soft tissue anesthesia will be assessed by inquiring about the area of numbness from the participant, no pain during pricking the palatal mucosa. The cases in which palatal anesthesia will not be reported by the patient will be given supplemental palatal infiltration with 0.2 to 0.3 mL articaine.

After achieving adequate buccal and palatal tissue anesthesia, the tooth will be extracted under aspetic technique.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Single buccal infiltration

Intervention Type OTHER

painless technique for palatal anesthesia,single injection,single puncture given

Buccal and intrapapillary infiltration using 4%articaine

Dryness the site of injection then application of topical anesthetic gel(2% benzocaine) Injecting a small amount of solution in the superficial mucosa,then needle will slowly advanced in the mucobuccal fold toward the apex of the molar and 1.5 ml of 4% articaine was slowly given. The remaining 0.3ml solution will be given equally into the distal, mesial intrapapillary and palatal sites respectively until blanching of the palate is observed extending more than halfway along the palatal gingival margin.

Subjective assessment of buccal and palatal soft tissue anesthesia will be assessed.

After achieving adequate buccal and palatal tissue anesthesia, the tooth will be extracted under aspetic technique.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Single buccal infiltration

Intervention Type OTHER

painless technique for palatal anesthesia,single injection,single puncture given

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Single buccal infiltration

painless technique for palatal anesthesia,single injection,single puncture given

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Children from 6 to 9 years of age requiring extraction in two different quadrants in maxillary arch.

* Children who demonstrate positive or definitely positive behavior during pretreatment evaluation ranking 3 or 4 in the Frankl scale.

* Rating 3: Positive Acceptance of treatment; at times cautious; willingness to comply with the dentist, at times with reservation, but patient follows the dentist's directions cooperatively.
* Rating 4 :Definitely positive Good rapport with the dentists interested in the dental procedures, laughing and enjoying.
* Child must give assent prior to participation, as well as parental informed written consent.

Exclusion Criteria

* Medically and mentally compromised children.
* Children with a history of prolonged bleeding, platelet disorders, hypersensitivity,
* History of significant behavior management problems.
* Patients having active sites of pathosis in the area of injection.
Minimum Eligible Age

6 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

9 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Cairo University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Hadil Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed ELSafty

principle investigator

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

14422017496954

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Hyaluronidase Enzymes and Local Anesthesia
NCT06980363 NOT_YET_RECRUITING PHASE1