Local regional anesthesia in Paediatric Dentistry: comparison between traditional technique and

SleeperOne S4 device. A preliminary study

Aim Patients’ compliance is one of the most important factors for success in paediatric dental therapies. During administration of local anesthesia, the fear for syringes and/or needles and pain sensation could compromise the establishment of childoperator relationship. For these reasons, several devices have been designed in order to minimize discomfort during this treatment phase. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the perception of pain and discomfort in young patients (5-15 years old) using SleeperOne S4 device compared to conventional technique during local-regional anesthesia.

Table 1 a and b: Test (a) and control (b) group

Alcozer R.*, Carbone L. , Ciuffreda C., Vitale M.C. Department of Clinical Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, Section of Dentistry, UDA

of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry. University of Pavia - Italy

Methods Twenty patients were enrolled in this clinical study and divided into 2 groups (Table 1): a Test group, in which SleeperOne S4 was used for local regional anesthesia; a Control group, in which local anesthesia was administered with traditional dental aspirating syringe. The same needle (30G – 9 mm, DENTAL HI TEC, ZI de l’Appentière, Mazières-en-Mauges, France) and anesthetic molecule (articaine 4% + adrenaline 1/100.000, Septanest, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) were used for all children (Fig 1 to 3). Some patients were included in both Groups receiving anesthesia with two mentioned techniques. VAS scale was used after anesthesia injection in all patients to evaluate subjective suffered discomfort by asking: how much painful your experience with anesthesia was form 0 to 10? Statistical analysis of clinical data was performed by Laboratory of Experimental Tests (UDA of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry. University of Pavia) using apposite software (R version 3.1.3, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien, Austria). T test for paired data was done. Results were defined as significant where P<0.05.

Discussion and Conclusions SleeperOne S4 device induced less pain and disconfort if compared to traditional technique for local regional anesthesia. It may result in a better pediatric patients’ compliance for dental treatments. The present preliminary study should be followed by further investigations with a larger number of patients in order to confirm obtained results and to investigate the variables eventually affecting them.

Results Statistical analysis showed a significant difference (P<0.05) between Test group (SleeperOne S4) and Control group (traditional technique), with VAS values in the Test group significantly lower than values obtained in the Control group (Table 2 and 3).

SLEEPERONE – table aPATIEN

T ID NAME AGETOOTH REGION

VAS SCAL

E

1 S.A. 7 7.5 12 P.M.M. 5 8.5 43 F.C. 5 7.4 24 B.A. 5 7.4 45 T.C.F. 5 7.4 66 P.S 12 8.5 17 O.A. 15 2.6 28 R.A.A. 7 2.6 09 C.E. 10 8.4 210 F.D. 7 6.4 211 B.S.E. 11 1.1 412 S.A. 8 1.2 213 M.M.Y. 7 7.5 214 P.L. 13 7.5 015 M.S. 9 8.5 2

CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUE – table bPATIENT

ID NAME AGETOOTH REGION

VAS SCALE

1 S.A. 7 5.4 12 P.M.M. 5 8.5 83 F.C. 5 5.1 104 B.A. 5 7.4 46 P.S 12 7.5 37 O.A. 15 4.5 29 C.E. 10 8.5 213 M.M.Y. 7 6.5 616 P.G. 11 6.3 217 C.A. 9 6.4 218 F.R. 14 2.1 319 C.N. 10 3.6 420 C.B. 7 5.4 5

Figure 1: SleeperOne S4 device

Figure 2: aspirating syringe

Figure 3: needles and anesthetic vials

Mean SD Min Mdn MaxConventional 4.67 2.82 1.00 3.00 10.00SleeperOne 2.67 1.12 1.00 2.00 4.00 Table 3: histogram showing lower VAS scale mean

value obtained in Test group than in Control group. Table 2: descriptive statistics