ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Two Active Distraction Techniques during Intraoral Local Anesthesia Administration among 3-6-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: A common and inevitable intrusive technique that causes anxiety in people of all ages, but particularly in young ones, is local anesthesia. A variety of behavioral management strategies, including active distraction tactics such as having a communication with the child, deep breathing, Writing In The Air Using Leg (WITAUL), and stress balls, are available to help reduce anxiety brought on by local anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the behavioral management techniques: stress ball and the hands-eyes-mouth distraction technique (HEM-DT). Materials and methods: Three groups of 60 preschool children participated in the study: group I (control group: communication), group II (stress ball distraction), and group III (HEM-DT). After applying topical lidocaine gel to the buccal mucosa, local anesthetic (LA) was deposited. The Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPRS) was used to measure dental pain following the administration of local anesthesia, while the Facial Image Scale (FIS) was used to measure anxiety. A pulse oximeter was used to measure the pulse rate. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the groups ( Results: HEM-DT showed significant difference on comparing pre-FIS and post-FIS scores, with a Conclusion: HEM-DT technique was found to be better than stress ball technique and communication. Clinical significance: The HEM-DT is a useful tool in pediatric dentistry that helps divert a child's attention from the needle and reduce their pain perception during various treatments. How to cite this article: Vijayakumar PM, Mathew BM, Banu N,
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.