Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2026
Comparison of computer-controlled intraosseous anaesthesia and conventional anaesthesia in paediatric dentistry: a split-mouth randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 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
purposeTo compare the efficacy, patient-reported acceptance, and preference of Computer-Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia (CCIA) and Conventional Local Anaesthesia (CLA) in paediatric dentistry.
methodsHealthy children aged 5-9 years who required similar treatment on both sides of either jaw were recruited from a university clinic. In a split-mouth randomised design, children received CCIA and CLA on contralateral sides one week apart, with side and sequence randomly allocated. Both procedures and data collection were performed by a single experienced paediatric dentist, and patient acceptance and preference were assessed using structured questions. Data were analysed with linear/logistic regressions adjusting for within-patient clustering (alpha = 5%).
results64 children (mean age 7.0 years; 44% boys) were included. No significant differences in CCIA or CLA clinical efficacy were seen (P = 0.59). Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia was associated with significantly less discomfort at needle insertion (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.32; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.16, 0.62), during injection (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.31), and overall during application (OR = 0,14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.31), as well as with lower fear levels (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.22, 0.84) compared to CLA (P < 0.05 in all instances). Although CCIA required longer administration, it produced shorter soft-tissue numbness and less self-inflicted trauma, and was more often associated with unpleasant taste, unusual tooth sensation, and post-injection bruising; nevertheless, CCIA was preferred by more children (78%) than CLA (22%; P < 0.001).
conclusionsNo difference in clinical efficacy between CCIA/CLA was seen; CCIA was associated with reduced procedural pain and fear compared to CLA, resulted in shorter soft tissue numbness, less self-inflicted trauma and was preferred by most children despite longer administration time and more transient local adverse sensations.
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.