ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Clinical evaluation of different types of injection systems and comparison of pain acceptance in palatal anesthesia in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled split-mouth study.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07585812 (Assessing the Efficacy of the Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System for Managing Pain and Anxiety During Pediatric Dental Injections), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Assessing the Efficacy of the Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System for Managing Pain and Anxiety During Pediatric Dental Injections: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of different dental local anesthesia techniques on salivary cortisol and secretory immunoglobulin a in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Orodispersible lidocaine film in palatine nerve block: a randomized, controlled and blind clinical trial.Odontology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Local dental anesthesia is the most commonly used method for eliminating pain during dental treatment. Palatal injections, which are routinely used to extract deciduous molars, may be poorly tolerated by pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain acceptance and anesthetic efficacy of the Comfort-In needle-free injection compared with the traditional injection method in upper deciduous molars requiring extraction. Methods: Patients between the ages of 4 and 10 years who were admitted to our clinic and required extraction of their maxillary deciduous molars under local anesthesia were included in our study. Infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental injector was applied to one of the symmetrical teeth, and a Comfort-in jet injection system was applied to the other. The Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C) anxiety scale was administered to children. The Wong-Baker Pain Rating Scale (WBPRS) and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales were applied to the children during the injection. The physiological parameters of the children were evaluated using pulse oximetry. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23 software (SPSS Inc., IBM Co., Somers, NY, USA). The significance level was set at P < 0.050. Results: No significant difference was observed between Comfort-In jet injection and conventional dental anesthesia in terms of Frankl scores (P = 0.180), pulse rate (P = 0.569), oxygen saturation (P = 0.615), and FLACC total values (P = 0.082). IDAF-4C anxiety levels were low in most of the included children. The categorical distribution of the WBPRS showed a statistically significant difference according to the method used (P = 0.022). Conclusions: We concluded that the Comfort-In jet injection system is as effective as the gold standard of infiltration anesthesia with a conventional dental syringe and that the Comfort-In jet injection system is acceptable to patients in the postoperative period. Needle-free jet injection is a promising alternative to palatal needle injection for palatal infiltration anesthesia in the maxillary first molars.
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.