International Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Efficacy of Painless Injection Technique-Vibraject-Clinical Trial in Chennai, India


Affiliations
1 Dept of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
2 Dept of Periodontics & Implantology, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
3 Dept. of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
 

Background: Pain is the most common cause of needle Phobia. In order to overcome this many advanced injection techniques has been implemented. The most recent and advanced technique was using a small vibrating device to the conventional injection technique.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of vibraject versus conventional injection technique.

Material and methods: Prospective, randomized, cross-over, single blinded design was carried out among adults above 18 years of age in private hospital in Chennai city, Tamil Nadu, India. Out of 52 subjects, 37 were willing to participate in the study. Split mouth technique was carried out. A calibrated single examiner used an appropriate amount of anaesthetic solution, 2% lidocaine with 1:100,00 dilution of epinephrine was injected slowly and then patient was asked to report their discomfort and pain was noted using verbal descriptor scale. Sign test was calculated to check the efficacy of vibraject to that of conventional injection technique.

Results: The total sample size consists of 37 study subjects. Out of total study subject, 35 subjects reported increased pain score while using conventional injection technique than using vibraject with a significant difference (Z=-5.5, p=0.00). Out of total study subject, 14 subjects reported increased pain score while using conventional injection technique than using vibraject. The p value for 2-tailed sign test shows (p=0.04) there was significant difference between two techniques.

Conclusion: Vibraject has significantly reduced pain both during insertion of needle and during deposition of solution when compared to the conventional injection technique.


Keywords

Vibraject, Pain, Needle Phobia, Conventional Injection Technique.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Kleinknechi R A, Thorndike R M, Mc Glynn F D, Harkavy. Factor analysis of dental fear survey with cross validation. Jour Am Dent Assoc 1984; 108(1): 59-61.

  • Klingberg G, Broberg A G. Dental fear/ Anxiety and dental behavior management problem in children and adolescents- A review of prevalence and concomitant pschylogical factors. Int Jour Paediatric Dent 2007; 17(6): 391406.

  • World Health Organization. Injection safety: report by the secretariat. World Health Organization Executive Board, 107th session Genevia. 2000; 5-12.

  • Hamilton J G. Needle phobia: a neglected diagnosis. J Fam Pract 1995; 41: 169-75.

  • Agras S, Sylvester D, Oliveav D. The epidemiology of common fears and phobias. Compr Psychiatry 1969; 10: 1511-56.

  • Arvidsson S B, Ekroth R H, Hansby A M. Painless venipuncture. A clinical trial of iontophoresis of lidocaine for veni uncture in blood donor. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1984; 28(2): 209-210.

  • Oswalt R M, Napoliello M. Motivations of blood donors and non-donors. J Appl Psychol 1974; 59: 122-4.

  • Graham D T. Prediction of fainting in blood donors. Circulation 1961; 23: 90-6.

  • Ost L G, Hellstrom K, Kayer A. One versus five sessions of exposure in the treatment of injection phobia. Behav Ther 1992;23:263-82.

  • Torgersen S. The nature and origin of common phobic fears. Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:343-51.

  • Elinwood E H, Hamilton J G. Case report of a needle phobia. J Fam Pract 1991; 32:420-3.

  • Davis M J, Vogel L D. Local anesthetic safety in pediatric patients. NY state Dental Journal 1996;62(2):32-5.

  • Feck A S, Goodchild J H. The use of anxiolytic medications to supplement local anesthesia in anxious patient. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26(3): 183-6,188,190.

  • Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Getz T. Treating fearful dental patients. A patient management handbook. 2nd edition. Seattle (WA): Continuing Dental Education, University of Washington.doi:10.1111/j.16000528.1996.tb00893. http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fear 15. Al Omari WM, Al Omiri MK. Dental anxiety among university students and its correlation with their fileld of study. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(3):199-203.

  • Taylor M, Clark, John A Yagiela. Advanced techniques and armamentarium for dental local anesthesia. Dent Clinc Am 2010;54:757768.

  • Shane S M, Kessler S. Electricity for sedation in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1967;785:1369-75.

  • Gibson R S, Allen K, Hutifiess S, Beiraghi S. The wand vs. traditional injection: A comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent 2000;22:458–62.

  • Friedman M J, Hochman M N. A 21st centuary computerized inj system for local pain control. Compendium:1997;18(10):995-1004.

  • Friedman M J, Hochman M N. The AMSA injection: a new concept for local anesthesia of maxillary teeth using a computer controlled injection system. Quintessence Int 1998;29:297-303.

  • Melzack R, Katz J. The Gate Control Theory: Reaching for the Brain. In Craig K D, Hadjistavropoulos T. Pain: psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2004. ISBN 0-8058-4299-3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of _pain_theory

  • Herr K A, Garand L. Assessment and measurement of pain in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med 2001 Aug;17(3):457-78.

  • Minori saijo, Emiko Ito, Tatsuya Ichinohe, Yuzuru Kaneko. Lack of pain reduction by a viberating Local Anesthetic Attachment: A pilot study. Anesth Prog 2005;52:62-64.

  • Kakigi R, Watanabe S. Pain relief by various kinds of interference stimulation applied to the peripheral skin in human: pain-related brain potentials following CO2 laser stimulation. J Peripher Nerv Syst 1996;1:189-198.

  • Blair J. Vibraject form ITL Dental. Dent Econ 2002;92(12):90.

  • Yoshikawa F, Ushito D, Ohe D, Shirasishi Y, Fukayama H, Umino M. Vibrating dental local anesthesia attachment to reduce injection pain. J Japan Dent Soc Anesthesiol 2003;31:194-195.

  • Fred Quarnstrom. Vibraject vs. the wand for the control of injection pain. Implantology Oral Surgery Restorative Dentistry Products. http://www.itldental.com/vibrajectwand.html.


Abstract Views: 280

PDF Views: 137




  • Efficacy of Painless Injection Technique-Vibraject-Clinical Trial in Chennai, India

Abstract Views: 280  |  PDF Views: 137

Authors

Jeevika Chandrasekaran
Dept of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
D. Prabu
Dept of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
Silviya
Dept of Periodontics & Implantology, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
M. Sunayana
Dept. of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
Adil Ahmed
Dept. of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
Barani Kumarasamy
Dept. of Public health Dentistry, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India

Abstract


Background: Pain is the most common cause of needle Phobia. In order to overcome this many advanced injection techniques has been implemented. The most recent and advanced technique was using a small vibrating device to the conventional injection technique.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of vibraject versus conventional injection technique.

Material and methods: Prospective, randomized, cross-over, single blinded design was carried out among adults above 18 years of age in private hospital in Chennai city, Tamil Nadu, India. Out of 52 subjects, 37 were willing to participate in the study. Split mouth technique was carried out. A calibrated single examiner used an appropriate amount of anaesthetic solution, 2% lidocaine with 1:100,00 dilution of epinephrine was injected slowly and then patient was asked to report their discomfort and pain was noted using verbal descriptor scale. Sign test was calculated to check the efficacy of vibraject to that of conventional injection technique.

Results: The total sample size consists of 37 study subjects. Out of total study subject, 35 subjects reported increased pain score while using conventional injection technique than using vibraject with a significant difference (Z=-5.5, p=0.00). Out of total study subject, 14 subjects reported increased pain score while using conventional injection technique than using vibraject. The p value for 2-tailed sign test shows (p=0.04) there was significant difference between two techniques.

Conclusion: Vibraject has significantly reduced pain both during insertion of needle and during deposition of solution when compared to the conventional injection technique.


Keywords


Vibraject, Pain, Needle Phobia, Conventional Injection Technique.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/ijmds%2F2014%2F80637