Pain Perception With a Comfort-ın Jet Injection and Conventional Dental Injection

NCT ID: NCT04682080

Last Updated: 2020-12-23

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

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

94 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-06-20

Study Completion Date

2019-06-20

Brief Summary

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

The investigators aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Comfort-in system, which is a jet injection type, and infiltrative anesthesia with a traditional injector, and to measure the effect of children's anxiety on the severity of pain.

Detailed Description

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

Among the children between the ages of 4 and 10 who were admitted to clinic between 2018-2020, whose clinical and radiographic examinations were completed; Patients with deciduous teeth that needed the same dental treatment (filling or amputation) with symmetrical local anesthesia application and positive (3) or definitely positive (4) according to the Frankl Behavior Evaluation Scale were included in the study. In study with a split-mouth design, infiltration anesthesia was applied with a conventional dental injector to one of the symmetrical teeth requiring the same treatment, while the Comfort-in jet injection system was applied to the other by the same physician. Patients were randomized into two grups according to the injection technique.

Group1: Needle-free injection system(Comofrt-In) 2:Dental injection method. The pain intensity was assessed during anesthesia(Pain 1), during treatment(Pain 2), at the end of the treatment(Pain 3) and on the postoperative 1st day (Pain 4)by the specially 7 colors (white, yellow, green, blue, magenta, red, black) using the Wong-Baker facial expressions and pain grading scale.Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Children's Dental Anxiety Scale face version.

The data were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics 19, the significance level was taken as p \<0.05.The datas were analyzed with a three-way variance method in repeated.

Conditions

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

Pain Local Infiltration Anesthesia Fear Anxiety Needle Phobia

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Comfort-in jet injection system needle-free injection dental pain dental anxiety and fear color of pain

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

NONE

Study Groups

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

Needle-free injection group

In needle-free injection techniques, 4% articaine with 1/100.000 epinephrine (Ultracaine DS forte) was injected using the Comfort-In system. Pain intensity and anxiety levels of patients were measured.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Needle-free injection

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

This study was performed among children aged 4-10 years who required dental treatment and were treated at the Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University. A total of 120 patients were evaluated in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 94 children (39 girls and 55 boys) were included in this study. Children who needed dental treatment were randomly divided into two groups. All dental injections were administered by the same operator (MB), a pediatric dentist with two years of experience in using the Comfort-In system.

In both groups, the children were asked to rate their pain intensity by choosing the closest statement on the colorful Wong-Baker Pain Scale at four time points: immediately after injection (Pain 1), during treatment (Pain 2), at the end of the treatment (Pain 3) and postoperative first day.Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Children's Dental Anxiety Scale face version

Dental injection group

In the conventional dental-injection method, 4% articaine with 1/100.000 epinephrine (Ultracaine DS forte) was injected using a 27G, 50-mm, disposable syringe with a needle. Pain intensity and anxiety levels of patients were measured.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Needle-free injection

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

This study was performed among children aged 4-10 years who required dental treatment and were treated at the Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University. A total of 120 patients were evaluated in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 94 children (39 girls and 55 boys) were included in this study. Children who needed dental treatment were randomly divided into two groups. All dental injections were administered by the same operator (MB), a pediatric dentist with two years of experience in using the Comfort-In system.

In both groups, the children were asked to rate their pain intensity by choosing the closest statement on the colorful Wong-Baker Pain Scale at four time points: immediately after injection (Pain 1), during treatment (Pain 2), at the end of the treatment (Pain 3) and postoperative first day.Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Children's Dental Anxiety Scale face version

Interventions

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

Needle-free injection

This study was performed among children aged 4-10 years who required dental treatment and were treated at the Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University. A total of 120 patients were evaluated in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 94 children (39 girls and 55 boys) were included in this study. Children who needed dental treatment were randomly divided into two groups. All dental injections were administered by the same operator (MB), a pediatric dentist with two years of experience in using the Comfort-In system.

In both groups, the children were asked to rate their pain intensity by choosing the closest statement on the colorful Wong-Baker Pain Scale at four time points: immediately after injection (Pain 1), during treatment (Pain 2), at the end of the treatment (Pain 3) and postoperative first day.Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Children's Dental Anxiety Scale face version

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Dental injection

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Aged between 4-10 years
* Having no developmental or systemic disorder or no history of allergy
* Having "positive" or "definitely positive" cooperation level according to the Frankl Behavior Scale
* Having sufficient mouth opening
* Operation only on primary teeth
* Having decayed teeth that require anesthesia

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients younger than four years, older than 10 years,
* Patients with systemic or developmental disorders
* Children with an allergy history
* 'Negative' or 'definitly negative' behavior rating according to the Frankl scale
* Patients whose mouth opening is not sufficient for dental treatment
* Operating only on permanent teeth
* Teeth that are beyond the treatment stage
* When pain occurred during treatment, supplemental anesthetics administrated, and these children were excluded.
Minimum Eligible Age

4 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

10 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

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

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Halenur Altan

Associated Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Halenur Altan, Assoc Prof.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Dentistry

Tokat Province, Center, Turkey (Türkiye)

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Turkey (Türkiye)

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Altan H, Cevik H, Dogru S, Cosgun A, Suren M, Okan I. The pain colour of children with toothache in Turkish population. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Apr 18;19(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0756-y.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30999904 (View on PubMed)

Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A, Kotsanos N. Comparison of acceptance, preference, and efficacy between jet injection INJEX and local infiltration anesthesia in 6 to 11 year old dental patients. Anesth Prog. 2010 Spring;57(1):3-12. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20331333 (View on PubMed)

Oliveira ACA, Amorim KS, Nascimento Junior EMD, Duarte ACB, Groppo FC, Takeshita WM, Souza LMA. Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Jan 14;27:e20180195. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30673030 (View on PubMed)

Armfield JM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C+). Psychol Assess. 2010 Jun;22(2):279-87. doi: 10.1037/a0018678.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20528055 (View on PubMed)

Burkitt E, Barrett M, Davis A. Children's colour choices for completing drawings of affectively characterised topics. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2003 Mar;44(3):445-55. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00134.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12635973 (View on PubMed)

Howard KE, Freeman R. Reliability and validity of a faces version of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007 Jul;17(4):281-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00830.x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17559456 (View on PubMed)

Khatri A, Kalra N. A comparison of two pain scales in the assessment of dental pain in East delhi children. ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:247351. doi: 10.5402/2012/247351. Epub 2012 Feb 14.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22461986 (View on PubMed)

Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK. Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012 Oct-Dec;30(4):323-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.108931.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23514685 (View on PubMed)

Makade CS, Shenoi PR, Gunwal MK. Comparison of acceptance, preference and efficacy between pressure anesthesia and classical needle infiltration anesthesia for dental restorative procedures in adult patients. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):169-74. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.128063.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24778516 (View on PubMed)

Ocak H, Akkoyun EF, Colpak HA, Demetoglu U, Yucesoy T, Kilic E, Alkan A. Is the jet injection effective for teeth extraction? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Feb;121(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.05.001. Epub 2019 May 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 31077857 (View on PubMed)

Munshi AK, Hegde A, Bashir N. Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference using the needle-less jet syringe in pediatric dental practice. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001 Winter;25(2):131-6. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.25.2.q6426p853266q575.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11314212 (View on PubMed)

Saravia ME, Bush JP. The needleless syringe: efficacy of anesthesia and patient preference in child dental patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1991 Winter;15(2):109-12.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 1931745 (View on PubMed)

Sermet Elbay U, Elbay M, Yildirim S, Kaya E, Kaya C, Ugurluel C, BaydemIr C. Evaluation of the injection pain with the use of DentalVibe injection system during supraperiosteal anaesthesia in children: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;26(5):336-45. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12204. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26369274 (View on PubMed)

Wogelius P, Poulsen S, Sorensen HT. Prevalence of dental anxiety and behavior management problems among six to eight years old Danish children. Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 Jun;61(3):178-83. doi: 10.1080/00016350310003468.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12868693 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

2018/33

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id