Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36933183›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2023

Comparative study of two different computer-controlled local anesthesia injection systems in children: a randomized clinical trial.

J C Abou Chedid, M Salameh, C El Hindy, M K Kaloustian, C El Hachem

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J C Abou ChedidDepartment of Pediatric and Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.
M SalamehDepartment of Pediatric and Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.
C El HindyDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.
M K KaloustianDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0811-6935
C El HachemDepartment of Pediatric and Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon. claire.elhachem@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-3330
Saint Joseph University · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare pain perception associated with two computer-controlled local anesthesia devices, the WAND™ STA (Milestone Scientific Inc., Livingston, NJ, USA) and the Calaject (Rønvig dental MFG, Daugaard, Denmark) in young children.

methodsA split-mouth randomized clinical trial comprising 30 patients, aged 6-12 years, received randomly, in two separate sessions, a local anesthesia injection in the maxillary using either the wand STA or the Calaject. Pain perception was evaluated using the patient's heart rate, an 11-point numerical scale (NRS), and the Sound, Eye, and Motor (SEM) body movements. Statistical difference was set at p = 0.05. Repeated measures analysis of variance were conducted to compare the mean pulse for Calaject and STA at different times. It was followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparisons tests. Wilcoxon tests were performed to compare NRS, SEM, and injection duration between Calaject and STA.

resultsThere was no significant statistical difference between Calaject and STA in pulse rate before injection (p = 0.720), during injection (p = 0.767), and after injection (p = 0.757). The mean NRS score was significantly greater with STA in comparison with Calaject (p = 0.017). The mean SEM score was also significantly greater with STA in comparison with Calaject (p = 0.002). However, the mean duration was significantly longer with Calaject (p = 0.001).

conclusionsCalaject was more effective than STA in reducing pain perception associated with periapical injection in young children.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalChildChild, PreschoolHumansPain MeasurementPain PerceptionAnesthetics, LocalCalajectComputer-controlled local anesthetic deliveryDental anesthesiaThe STA Wand

Identifiers

PMID36933183
OpenAlexW4327811375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.