EFFECTIVENESS OF OSTEOCENTRAL ANESTHESIA (QUICKSLEEPER 5™) VS LOCOREGIONAL ANESTHESIA IN EXTRACTION OF PRIMARY MAXILLARY MOLARS: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 5, Volume 50, Issue 2, August 2025, Pages 253-261 PDF (592.27 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2024.338153.1556 | ||
| Authors | ||
| sara M quritum* 1; Karin M L Dowidar2; Nadia A. Wahba3 | ||
| 1Assistant lecturer, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||
| 2Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||
| 3Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Local anesthesia injection is an anxiety-provoking procedure in the dental office. Pain control is the master-key for effective behavior guidance, especially among pediatric patients. Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of intra-osseous (IO) anesthesia using Quicksleeper5 in eliminating pain during extraction of primary maxillary molars, compared to infiltration anesthesia. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial involved 30 healthy cooperative patients aged 5-9 , who required extracting of one of their primary maxillary molars. They were randomly allocated to receive IO anesthesia (test group) or infiltration anesthesia (control group). Pain response was assessed at injection and extraction phases using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and heart rate (HR). Pain-related behaviors were evaluated through FLACC scale. Postoperative complications were evaluated through a phone call. Results: There was no significant difference regarding the mean age of test and control groups (6.6 ± 1.4 and 6.7 ± 1.2 years, respectively). Lower pain scores were reported in the test group than control group using VAS (p=0.012, 0.028) and FLACC (p < 0.001) during injection and extraction phases, respectively. An increase in HR was noticed in both groups at the injection phase. However, higher values were recorded in the control group (p=0.002). Unlike the control group, HR returned to baseline records immediately postoperatively in the control group. Postoperatively, 13.3% of the participants in the test group reported residual pain at injection site, compared to 26.7% in the control group. Conclusion: IO anesthesia using QuickSleeper5 is an efficient tool for reducing pain upon local anesthesia administration and primary maxillary molar extraction. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Intraosseous-anesthesia; Computer–controlled; pain control; Pediatrics; extraction | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 52 PDF Download: 48 |
||
