ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Pain Perception Between Needleless Jet Infiltration Anaesthesia and Conventional Needle Anaesthesia for Maxillary Primary Molars in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of a syringe and needle for delivering local anaesthesia is known to provoke anxiety and apprehension in patients even before dental treatment begins. To overcome anxiety associated with needles, needleless jet infiltration anaesthesia using the INJEX® system (Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany) has been investigated. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate differences in pain perception among children administered INJEX and conventional infiltration anaesthesia. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases for studies published up to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the articles, and six studies were finally included based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias in the selected randomised controlled trials was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that pain experienced during injection and treatment with INJEX was not significantly different from that associated with conventional infiltration anaesthesia. In paediatric dentistry, needleless jet injection could represent a preferable option to conventional local anaesthetic delivery, owing to its higher child acceptance and reduced postoperative pain. Incorporating needleless jet injection (INJEX) into pediatric dental practice can improve patient acceptance by lowering pain and anxiety, ultimately leading to a more positive treatment experience. It offers a child-friendly alternative to conventional needle infiltration, enhancing overall clinical efficiency and patient satisfaction.
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.