ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Comparative evaluation of two behavior guidance techniques in reducing pain perception and anxiety during local anesthesia administration in children: a randomized clinical trial.
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. 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.
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: The combination of local anesthesia (LA) and distraction techniques effectively reduces procedural pain and anxiety, enhance cooperation, and promote positive dental experiences in children. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Hands-Eyes-Mouth Distraction Technique (HEM-DT) and the Covering Patient's Vision Technique (CPV-T) on pain perception and anxiety during local anesthesia administration in children aged 6-12 years. Methods: Fifty-two healthy children aged 6-12 years requiring LA were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: those receiving the HEM-DT, and those receiving the CPV-T. Anxiety was assessed subjectively using the Animated Emoji Scale before and after the intervention, while pulse rate was recorded using a pulse oximeter before, during, and after LA. Pain perception was measured during LA using the Sounds, Eyes, Motor (SEM) scale and after LA using the colored analog scale. Physiological data were analyzed using independent t-tests for intergroup comparisons, and paired t-tests with repeated-measures ANOVA for intragroup analysis. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate intragroup anxiety scores, and Mann-Whitney U test was used for intergroup comparisons of anxiety and pain scores. Results: Intragroup comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in pulse rates before, during, and after LA (P < 0.001). Intergroup comparisons also showed statistically significant differences in pulse rates during and after LA. Anxiety scores decreased significantly in the HEM-DT group (P < 0.001), which also had lower mean SEM and colored analogue scale pain scores than the CPV-T group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: HEM-DT was effective in reducing pain and anxiety during LA administration in children.
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.