Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Comparison of five anesthetic delivery systems for palatal infiltration: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain and anxiety during palatal infiltration remain barriers to patient cooperation. The anesthetic delivery system may influence subjective outcomes and physiological stress responses, yet robust comparative data are lacking. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this randomized, parallel-arm superiority trial, 200 healthy adults (≥18 years) were equally allocated into five groups (n=40) by block randomization with concealed allocation. Tested systems were conventional dental syringe (CDS), manual pressure syringe (MCJ), spring-activated pressure syringe (PCJ), needle-free jet injector (NFI), and computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD). Each participant received 0.4 mL of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) via standardized palatal infiltration by a single calibrated operator. The study was single-blind: outcome assessors and statisticians were blinded to allocation. The primary outcome was post-injection pain (VAS, 0-10cm). Secondary outcomes were dental fear (VAS pre/post), pulse rate, and oxygen saturation, recorded at baseline, during, and after injection.
resultsMean VAS pain did not differ significantly across groups (overall p=0.380); adjusted analyses (ANCOVA including injection duration as covariate) confirmed no clinically relevant mean differences [95% CI within ±0.5 cm; Hedges' g <0.20]. MCJ showed slightly higher discomfort. All systems significantly reduced fear (p<0.05), with PCJ showing the largest reduction (ΔVAS-2.7). Pulse rate varied across groups (p<0.001), peaking in CCLAD and remaining most stable in MCJ; oxygen saturation was unchanged. No adverse events were observed.
conclusionsAll systems were clinically safe and effective but differed in psychophysiological impact. Devices that reduce fear and stabilize vital responses, particularly those targeting PCJ and CCLAD, may help improve patient cooperation and the overall treatment experience.
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.