Trial reportAnesthesia progress2020
Efficacy of Pulpal Anesthesia Using a Needle-less Syringe.
Trial report in Anesthesia progress, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the manufacturer's claims regarding a novel needleless intraligamentary local anesthesia injection device (Numbee, BioDent) to provide effective single tooth anesthesia. Investigators compared the Numbee with a traditional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) during a restorative procedure on mandibular teeth. A randomized, split-mouth design was conducted with 15 adult subjects receiving an IANB on one side and a Numbee injection on the same tooth type on the contralateral side. Subjects recorded injection pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and their preferred injection technique. Anesthesia was considered profound with 2 consecutive electric pulp tester readings of 80. If subjects became symptomatic during the restorative procedure, rescue anesthesia was administered. The difference in VAS scores for injection pain between the Numbee and the IANB was not significant (p = .078). For the IANB, the incidence of profound anesthesia was 46%, and required rescue anesthesia was 20%. For the Numbee, the incidence of profound anesthesia was 0%, and required rescue anesthesia was 60%. Subject preference was evenly split (50/50%) between the 2 techniques. The IANB outperformed the Numbee device for achieving profound anesthesia and requiring less rescue anesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.