Study Results
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.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
66 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-02-28
2026-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effect of Starpen Injection Device Versus Conventional Syringe During Anesthesia and Extraction of Primary Molars
NCT07156032
Comparing Controlled Flow Delivery Dentapen® Technique to Traditional Syringes
NCT05959642
Efficacy of Pulpal Anesthesia and Patient Preference Using the Needle-less and Conventional Injection Techniques
NCT05724862
Pain Assessment During Chemo-Mechanical and Smart Burs Caries Removal Versus Atraumatic Restorative Treatment in Carious Primary Molars
NCT05529433
Comparison of a Needle-free Local Anesthetic Technique With Traditional Syringe [ Needle Syringe] Technique for the Restoration of Primary Molars and Permanent Molars
NCT06448507
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Anxiety, a fear of dental procedures, is often linked to unpleasant stimuli such as needle phobia, high vibration, noises, pain, and the smell of materials or medications. Patients who experience anxiety often exhibit complex behavior before or during dental procedures, causing additional discomfort.
In most dental procedures, Local anesthetic (LA) is crucial to alleviate pain during dental procedures enabling the dentist to complete the process. Even though LA is used to reduce pain during the procedure, but traditional methods itself can cause pain, making pediatric patients anxious and uncooperative in dental offices.
Effective pain management is crucial for children receiving dental injections to promote comfort, cooperation, and compliance. These techniques include topical analgesics, distraction, injection rates, buffering and warming the local anesthesia, speed reduction, fine needles, and precooling. Yet, no conclusive painless injection technique has been developed yet.
Finally, The Wand system, developed in 1997 by Milestone Scientific Inc., it was the first Computer-Controlled Local Anesthesia Delivery (CCLAD)discovered. Other devices like Morpheus, Calaject, Quicksleeper, and Smartject have entered the market, these systems varying in injection speed, design, weight, and shape, so, dentists can select the one that best meets their requirements.
This device's main concept is that a local anesthetic injection is done by lowering the pressure and flow rate.
The CCLAD reduced destructive behaviors in young children who were difficult to cooperate compared to the traditional method and created a positive experience for both the patient and physician.
The main advantage of these CCLADS devices is The ability to provide a small quantity of the local anesthetic solution with a stable injection mode, which decreases the discomfort associated with less controlled injections. In both adult and pediatric dentistry, the CCLADS devices have proven effective for extractions, pulpal therapies, and restorations. Patients also tolerate them well and behave less disruptively.
The Traditional injection syringe compared with computer-controlled local analgesic delivery devices (CCLAD) regarding disruptive behavior, pain, anxiety, and biochemical parameters. The results showed lower VAS, WBS, and salivary cortisol values in CCLADS patients compared to the traditional syringe group. They concluded that a positive impact of CCLADS on pain and anxiety can be recommended for pediatric patients.
Using CCLADs is significantly less painful than using traditional syringes and opens new, promising opportunities for working with patients presenting high dental fear.
The Starpen is one of the most recent advances that is promoted as a more comfortable and painless alternative to the traditional local anesthetic syringe. It includes a power adapter, cartridge holder, handpiece, and charging base. In dental uses, it can be injected intramuscularly or subcutaneously. It comes in three different speeds-high, low, and hybrid-and two aspiration modes-manual and auto. It may be used with the majority of the conventional gauge needles.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
OTHER
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
control group
nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars using a Traditional Syringe
Traditional Syringe
nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars using Traditional Syringe
intervention group
nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars using Computer-controlled Starpen Automatic Injection Device
computer-controlled Starpen Automatic Injection Device
using computer-controlled Starpen Automatic Injection Device during inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
computer-controlled Starpen Automatic Injection Device
using computer-controlled Starpen Automatic Injection Device during inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars
Traditional Syringe
nerve block anesthesia and extraction of mandibular primary molars using Traditional Syringe
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Cooperative children (Rating 3 or 4 based on the Frankl behavior scale)
* Medically fit children (ASA I).
* Children are mentally capable of communication.
* First dental visit.
* Patient requiring extraction of lower primary molars due to root caries, crown fractures, periapical disease, and failed pulpotomies.
Exclusion Criteria
* Parental refusal of participation.
* Children with a previous history of local anesthesia injection.
* Medically unfit children (other than ASA I).
* Uncooperative children (other than Frankl 3,4).
* Children under medications (antibiotics and analgesics) for the previous 48 hours that could alter the pain perception.
* Teeth that showed any signs of mobility, ankylosis, or root resorption affecting more than one-third of the root
6 Years
8 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Cairo University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Sara Mostafa Abohashim Masoud Soliman
Principal Investigator
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Saoji H, Nainan MT, Nanjappa N, Khairnar MR, Hishikar M, Jadhav V. Assessment of computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system for pain control during restorative procedures: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2019 Fall;13(4):298-304. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2019.045.
Patini R, Staderini E, Cantiani M, Camodeca A, Guglielmi F, Gallenzi P. Dental anaesthesia for children - effects of a computer-controlled delivery system on pain and heart rate: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Oct;56(8):744-749. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.006. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
Attia S, Austermann T, May A, Mekhemar M, Conrad J, Knitschke M, Bottger S, Howaldt HP, Riad A. Pain perception following computer-controlled versus conventional dental anesthesia: randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Sep 22;22(1):425. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02454-1.
Janik K, Niemczyk W, Peterek R, Roj R, Balicz A, Morawiec T. Computer-Controlled Local Anaesthesia Delivery efficacy - a literature review. Saudi Dent J. 2024 Aug;36(8):1066-1071. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.05.012. Epub 2024 May 31.
Shilpapriya M, Jayanthi M, Reddy VN, Sakthivel R, Selvaraju G, Vijayakumar P. Effectiveness of new vibration delivery system on pain associated with injection of local anesthesia in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015 Jul-Sep;33(3):173-6. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.160343.
Anil O, Keskin G. Comparison of computer controlled local anesthetic delivery and traditional injection regarding disruptive behaviour, pain, anxiety and biochemical parameters: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Jan;48(1):120-127. doi: 10.22514/jocpd.2023.046. Epub 2024 Jan 3.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Starpen CCLAD in injection
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.