Dental AnxietyNCT06340022
Pain and Anxiety Levels of Sleeperone Electronic Anesthesia System in Pediatric Patients
A study testing Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in people with Dental Anxiety and Pain, run by Eskisehir Osmangazi University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The conventional method used for dental anesthesia in children is the administration of a local anesthetic solution by injection. Although this process successfully eliminates pain during the procedure, it continues to be a problem for many children in terms of dental anxiety before and during anesthesia… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 8 to 12 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Anxiety, Pain
- What is being tested?
- Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 32 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 13 Mar 2023to 15 Nov 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 8 to 12 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Patients with ASA 1 general systemic status
- Patients aged 8-12 years
- Patients in Frankl behavior rating score of III and IV
- Asymptomatic teeth
- Patients with carious lesions not exceeding 1/3 of the buccolingual distance between the buccal and lingual pulp crests on the occlusal surfaces of right and left upper/lower permanent first molars with complete apical root development
- Patients with permanent first molars with caries at a minimum dentin 1/2 level and intact dentin at the pulp margin on radiographic evaluation
Who cannot join
- Patients with mild or severe systemic disease, receiving medical treatment
- Patients younger than 8 years and older than 12 years
- Uncooperative, non-compliant patients in the Class I or Class II group according to the Frankl behavior scale
- Teeth with a history of spontaneous pain and tenderness on palpation and percussion
- Patients in need of dental treatment requiring urgent intervention
- Teeth with incomplete apical root development
Show all 9Show fewer
- Patients with large carious lesions that exceed 1/3 of the distance between the occlusal and buccolingual pulp crests
- Patients with teeth with clinical or radiographic evidence of caries on the interdental or buccal and/or lingual surfaces
- Teeth with caries lesions that do not reach dentin 1/2 on radiographic evaluation or teeth with intact dentin tissue at the pulpal margin
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Eskişehir
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Pain and Anxiety Levels of Sleeperone 5 Electronic Anesthesia System and Conventional Local Anesthesia Techniques in Pediatric Patients: a Randomised Clinical Study
The conventional method used for dental anesthesia in children is the administration of a local anesthetic solution by injection. Although this process successfully eliminates pain during the procedure, it continues to be a problem for many children in terms of dental anxiety before and during anesthesia administration.
The aim of this study is to compare intraosseous anesthesia with SleeperOne® 5, a computer-assisted local anesthesia system, with conventional local anesthesia techniques in terms of pain and anxiety.
Read the detailed description
In the conventional injection technique, painful local swelling of the tissues at the injection site occurs during the administration of local anesthetics. Failure to control the rate of administration of anesthesia increases pain, swelling and tissue tension, leading to the discomfort and unpleasant sensations that accompany local anesthesia. In addition, an uncontrolled and shocking increase in pressure in the anesthetized tissues can lead to short-term blood supply disturbances and local damage, reducing the effectiveness of anesthesia and increasing the risk of side effects. It has been reported that the pain felt during anesthesia is mostly caused by the inability to control the pressure generated during the injection of the solution. To overcome these shortcomings, the search for new alternative and minimally invasive methods of local anesthesia has been in the limelight with better pain control, reduced injection pain and improved quality of treatment for pedodontic procedures. With the use of computer-assisted local anesthesia systems, the anesthetic solution is administered gradually and the tissue pressure during anesthesia can be controlled. Thus, a less painful and more comfortable anesthesia experience can be provided. SleeperOne® 5, one of the computer-assisted local anesthesia systems, is a device with advantages such as ease of use, less intimidating physical appearance of the needle, no need for pressure during injection, guided entry points to the injection site. There are no previous studies comparing the use of intraosseous technique with SleeperOne® 5 device and conventional mandibular anesthesia in mandibular permanent molars. In this study, the investigators aimed to compare the pain and anxiety caused by the SleeperOne® 5 anesthesia system in children compared to traditional anesthesia methods, of which there are few studies in the literature. The first null hypothesis (H0) of the study is that there is no difference between intraosseous anesthesia administered with SleeperOne® 5 computer-assisted anesthesia systems and buccal infiltration and mandibular anesthesia administered with conventional methods in terms of anxiety in patients. The second null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between intraosseous anesthesia performed with SleeperOne® 5 computer-assisted anesthesia systems and buccal infiltration and mandibular anesthesia performed with conventional methods in terms of pain.
- Conditions
- Dental Anxiety, Pain
- Being tested
- Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), pulse rate
- Keywords
- Dental Anxiety, Intraosseous Anesthesia, Pain, SleeperOne
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scaleOther
Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale was applied to determine the anxiety level before the procedure.
Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring systemOther
Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system (1= not afraid at all, 2= very little afraid, 3= afraid, 4= quite afraid, 5= very much afraid) was used to determine the anxiety level before starting anesthesia and after the anesthesia.
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)Other
In the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the patient was asked to rate the pain he/she felt during anesthesia on a 10 cm long ruler ranging from no pain=0 to unbearable pain=10.
pulse rateOther
Before starting anesthesia and after the anesthesia the patient's pulse rate was measured and recorded with a pulse oximeter.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Upper jaw | Experimental | * A half of upper jaw: Electronic local anesthesia technique (SleeperOne) A topical anesthetic spray containing 10% lidocaine was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute.The SleeperOne® 5 (Dentalhitec, Mazières-en-Mauges, France) device was used with 30 gauge-0.30x09 mm Effitec needle tips for intraosseous anesthesia. The anesthesia was applied in child mode according to the manufacturer.1 ml of local anesthetic solution (Ultracaine D-S Fort) was applied for 1 minute.
* The contralateral half of the upper jaw: Infiltrative anesthesia (conventional) After confirming the vitality of the tooth, a topical anesthetic spray was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute. A local anesthetic, Maxicaine Forte, was administered for 1.5 ml for 1 minute using buccal infiltration anesthesia technique using short syringes. Receives: Other: Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale; Other: Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system; Other: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); Other: pulse rate |
| Lower jaw | Experimental | * A half of lower jaw: Electronic local anesthesia technique (SleeperOne) A topical anesthetic spray containing 10% lidocaine was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute.The SleeperOne® 5 (Dentalhitec, Mazières-en-Mauges, France) device was used with 30 gauge-0.30x09 mm Effitec needle tips for intraosseous anesthesia. The anesthesia was applied in child mode according to the manufacturer.1 ml of local anesthetic solution (Ultracaine D-S Fort) was applied for 1 minute.
* The contralateral half of the lower jaw: mandibular anesthesia (conventional) After topical anesthesia, mandibular anesthesia with Maxicaine Forte,in an amount of 1.8 ml was administered for 1 minute using long syringes. Receives: Other: Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale; Other: Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system; Other: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); Other: pulse rate |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The pulse rate measurements before and after the anesthesia techniques
Application and recording of scale measurements of pulse rate before and after the anesthesia techniques (normal 70-120 bpm)
Measured: 7 months
Determine the anxiety level before the procedures
Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale before the anesthesia procedures. A score between 1 and 5 was made according to the answers given to each question in this scale (1 point = not at all afraid, 2 points = slightly afraid, 3 points = moderately afraid, 4 points = quite afraid, 5 points = very afraid). If the score obtained from the CFSS-DS measurement results is below 38, it is considered as non-anxious, between 38-45 as significant dental anxiety, and as 45 and above as high level dental anxiety.
Measured: 7 months
The anxiety measurements before and after the anesthesia techniques
Application and recording of scale measurements of Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system before and after the anesthesia techniques.(1= not afraid at all, 2= very little afraid, 3= afraid, 4= quite afraid, 5= very much afraid)
Measured: 7 months
The pain measurements during the anesthesia techniques
In the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the patient was asked to rate the pain he/she felt during anesthesia on a 10 cm long ruler ranging from no pain=0 to unbearable pain=10. The results were recorded on the forms.
Measured: 7 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Apr 2024
- Study start13 Mar 2023
- Primary completion2 Oct 2023
- Study completion15 Nov 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental AnxietyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- The study was a single-center randomized controlled trial using a split mouth design with a 1:1 split ratio.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Eskisehir Osmangazi University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Irem Bag, Eskisehir Osmangazi University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06340022
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2022-31
- Status last verified
- Mar 2024
- First submitted
- 18 Mar 2024
- Last updated
- 1 Apr 2024
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Other researchers will be able to access the individual participant data from the corresponding author.
Publications
Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC. Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;19(5):360-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00983.x. Epub 2009 Apr 14.
PubMed 19486372Sovatdy S, Vorakulpipat C, Kiattavorncharoen S, Saengsirinavin C, Wongsirichat N. Inferior alveolar nerve block by intraosseous injection with Quicksleeper(R) at the retromolar area in mandibular third molar surgery. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Dec;18(6):339-347. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.6.339. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
PubMed 30637344Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha M. Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 May 1;17(3):e426-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17543.
PubMed 22143722Dempsy Chengappa MM, Prashanth AK. Evaluation of efficacy of computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system vs traditional injection system for minor pediatric surgical procedures in children. Med J Armed Forces India. 2022 Sep;78(Suppl 1):S89-S95. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.010. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
PubMed 36147427Angelo Z, Polyvios C. Alternative practices of achieving anaesthesia for dental procedures: a review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Apr;18(2):79-88. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.2.79. Epub 2018 Apr 27.
PubMed 29744382Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Computerized anesthesia delivery system vs. traditional syringe: comparing pain and pain-related behavior in children. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Dec;113(6):488-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00252.x.
PubMed 16324138Anil 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.
PubMed 38239164
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Apr 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Pain and Anxiety Levels of Sleeperone 5 Electronic Anesthesia System and Conventional Local Anesthesia Techniques in Pediatric Patients: a Randomised Clinical Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06340022
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2022-31
- Conditions
- Dental Anxiety, Pain
- Keywords
- Dental Anxiety, Intraosseous Anesthesia, Pain, SleeperOne
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 32 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Eskisehir Osmangazi UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 13 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 2 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Nov 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Apr 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The conventional method used for dental anesthesia in children is the administration of a local anesthetic solution by injection. Although this process successfully eliminates pain during the procedure, it continues to be a problem for many children in terms of dental anxiety before and during anesthesia administration.
The aim of this study is to compare intraosseous anesthesia with SleeperOne® 5, a computer-assisted local anesthesia system, with conventional local anesthesia techniques in terms of pain and anxiety.
Detailed description
In the conventional injection technique, painful local swelling of the tissues at the injection site occurs during the administration of local anesthetics. Failure to control the rate of administration of anesthesia increases pain, swelling and tissue tension, leading to the discomfort and unpleasant sensations that accompany local anesthesia. In addition, an uncontrolled and shocking increase in pressure in the anesthetized tissues can lead to short-term blood supply disturbances and local damage, reducing the effectiveness of anesthesia and increasing the risk of side effects. It has been reported that the pain felt during anesthesia is mostly caused by the inability to control the pressure generated during the injection of the solution. To overcome these shortcomings, the search for new alternative and minimally invasive methods of local anesthesia has been in the limelight with better pain control, reduced injection pain and improved quality of treatment for pedodontic procedures. With the use of computer-assisted local anesthesia systems, the anesthetic solution is administered gradually and the tissue pressure during anesthesia can be controlled. Thus, a less painful and more comfortable anesthesia experience can be provided. SleeperOne® 5, one of the computer-assisted local anesthesia systems, is a device with advantages such as ease of use, less intimidating physical appearance of the needle, no need for pressure during injection, guided entry points to the injection site. There are no previous studies comparing the use of intraosseous technique with SleeperOne® 5 device and conventional mandibular anesthesia in mandibular permanent molars. In this study, the investigators aimed to compare the pain and anxiety caused by the SleeperOne® 5 anesthesia system in children compared to traditional anesthesia methods, of which there are few studies in the literature. The first null hypothesis (H0) of the study is that there is no difference between intraosseous anesthesia administered with SleeperOne® 5 computer-assisted anesthesia systems and buccal infiltration and mandibular anesthesia administered with conventional methods in terms of anxiety in patients. The second null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between intraosseous anesthesia performed with SleeperOne® 5 computer-assisted anesthesia systems and buccal infiltration and mandibular anesthesia performed with conventional methods in terms of pain.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The study was a single-center randomized controlled trial using a split mouth design with a 1:1 split ratio.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Upper jaw | Experimental | Other: Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Other: Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system, Other: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Other: pulse rate* A half of upper jaw: Electronic local anesthesia technique (SleeperOne) A topical anesthetic spray containing 10% lidocaine was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute.The SleeperOne® 5 (Dentalhitec, Mazières-en-Mauges, France) device was used with 30 gauge-0.30x09 mm Effitec needle tips for intraosseous anesthesia. The anesthesia was applied in child mode according to the manufacturer.1 ml of local anesthetic solution (Ultracaine D-S Fort) was applied for 1 minute. * The contralateral half of the upper jaw: Infiltrative anesthesia (conventional) After confirming the vitality of the tooth, a topical anesthetic spray was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute. A local anesthetic, Maxicaine Forte, was administered for 1.5 ml for 1 minute using buccal infiltration anesthesia technique using short syringes. |
| Lower jaw | Experimental | Other: Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Other: Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system, Other: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Other: pulse rate* A half of lower jaw: Electronic local anesthesia technique (SleeperOne) A topical anesthetic spray containing 10% lidocaine was applied with a cotton pellet for 1 minute.The SleeperOne® 5 (Dentalhitec, Mazières-en-Mauges, France) device was used with 30 gauge-0.30x09 mm Effitec needle tips for intraosseous anesthesia. The anesthesia was applied in child mode according to the manufacturer.1 ml of local anesthetic solution (Ultracaine D-S Fort) was applied for 1 minute. * The contralateral half of the lower jaw: mandibular anesthesia (conventional) After topical anesthesia, mandibular anesthesia with Maxicaine Forte,in an amount of 1.8 ml was administered for 1 minute using long syringes. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 8 to 12 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients with ASA 1 general systemic status
- Patients aged 8-12 years
- Patients in Frankl behavior rating score of III and IV
- Asymptomatic teeth
- Patients with carious lesions not exceeding 1/3 of the buccolingual distance between the buccal and lingual pulp crests on the occlusal surfaces of right and left upper/lower permanent first molars with complete apical root development
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Patients with mild or severe systemic disease, receiving medical treatment
- Patients younger than 8 years and older than 12 years
- Uncooperative, non-compliant patients in the Class I or Class II group according to the Frankl behavior scale
- Teeth with a history of spontaneous pain and tenderness on palpation and percussion
- Patients in need of dental treatment requiring urgent intervention
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scaleChildren's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale was applied to determine the anxiety level before the procedure. | Other | Lower jaw, Upper jaw |
| Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring systemFace Image Scale (FIS) scoring system (1= not afraid at all, 2= very little afraid, 3= afraid, 4= quite afraid, 5= very much afraid) was used to determine the anxiety level before starting anesthesia and after the anesthesia. | Other | Lower jaw, Upper jaw |
| Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)In the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the patient was asked to rate the pain he/she felt during anesthesia on a 10 cm long ruler ranging from no pain=0 to unbearable pain=10. | Other | Lower jaw, Upper jaw |
| pulse rateBefore starting anesthesia and after the anesthesia the patient's pulse rate was measured and recorded with a pulse oximeter. | Other | Lower jaw, Upper jaw |
Primary outcome
The pulse rate measurements before and after the anesthesia techniques
Time frame: 7 months
Application and recording of scale measurements of pulse rate before and after the anesthesia techniques (normal 70-120 bpm)
Determine the anxiety level before the procedures
Time frame: 7 months
Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale before the anesthesia procedures. A score between 1 and 5 was made according to the answers given to each question in this scale (1 point = not at all afraid, 2 points = slightly afraid, 3 points = moderately afraid, 4 points = quite afraid, 5 points = very afraid). If the score obtained from the CFSS-DS measurement results is below 38, it is considered as non-anxious, between 38-45 as significant dental anxiety, and as 45 and above as high level dental anxiety.
The anxiety measurements before and after the anesthesia techniques
Time frame: 7 months
Application and recording of scale measurements of Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system before and after the anesthesia techniques.(1= not afraid at all, 2= very little afraid, 3= afraid, 4= quite afraid, 5= very much afraid)
The pain measurements during the anesthesia techniques
Time frame: 7 months
In the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the patient was asked to rate the pain he/she felt during anesthesia on a 10 cm long ruler ranging from no pain=0 to unbearable pain=10. The results were recorded on the forms.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Apr 2024.
- Background: PubMed 19486372Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Hingant B, Robert JC. Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system (QuickSleeper). Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;19(5):360-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00983.x. Epub 2009 Apr 14.
- Background: PubMed 30637344Sovatdy S, Vorakulpipat C, Kiattavorncharoen S, Saengsirinavin C, Wongsirichat N. Inferior alveolar nerve block by intraosseous injection with Quicksleeper(R) at the retromolar area in mandibular third molar surgery. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Dec;18(6):339-347. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.6.339. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
- Background: PubMed 22143722Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha M. Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 May 1;17(3):e426-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17543.
- Background: PubMed 36147427Dempsy Chengappa MM, Prashanth AK. Evaluation of efficacy of computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system vs traditional injection system for minor pediatric surgical procedures in children. Med J Armed Forces India. 2022 Sep;78(Suppl 1):S89-S95. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.010. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
- Background: PubMed 29744382Angelo Z, Polyvios C. Alternative practices of achieving anaesthesia for dental procedures: a review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Apr;18(2):79-88. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.2.79. Epub 2018 Apr 27.
- Background: PubMed 16324138Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Computerized anesthesia delivery system vs. traditional syringe: comparing pain and pain-related behavior in children. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Dec;113(6):488-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00252.x.
- Background: PubMed 38239164Anil 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Other researchers will be able to access the individual participant data from the corresponding author.
Related trials for Dental Anxiety
Active, not recruiting
HRVB for Stress and Anxiety During Dentistry Students' Clinical Transition
Stress (Psychology), Anxiety
Recruiting
Pain Perception With Cordless Electronic Local Anesthetic Delivery System
Decayed Primary Molars
RecruitingObservational study
Bruxism, Anxiety, and Periodontal Status Among Dental Students
Bruxism, Anxiety
Recruiting
Comparative Evaluation of Intranasal Atomized Midazalom Combined With Nitrous Oxide Versus Nitrous Oxide Monotherapy
Dental Anxiety in Children, Child Behaviour
Active, not recruiting
Musical Intervention for Dental Anxiety
Dental Anxiety
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) scale, Face Image Scale (FIS) scoring system and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in people with Dental Anxiety and Pain, run by Eskisehir Osmangazi University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Apr 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The pulse rate measurements before and after the anesthesia techniques (time frame: 7 months). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06340022, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Apr 2024.