140 Views

OR31 - Comparison of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Injection Pain Using Varied Flow Rates with the Dentapen and Syringe Injection

Virtual-Only Presentation

Presenter(s)

LY

Leigh Yarborough O'Neal, D.M.D., M.S.

Endodontist and Former Endodontic Resident
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Disclosure: I do not have any relevant financial / non-financial relationships with any proprietary interests.

Co-Author(s)

John Nusstein, D.D.S., M.S.

Professor and Chair
Ohio State University
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Disclosure: Quintessence Publishing (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Division receives royalties from book sales of "successful Local Anesthesia"., Other Financial or Material Support
Melissa Drum, D.D.S., M.S.

Professor and Program Director
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Disclosure: I do not have any relevant financial / non-financial relationships with any proprietary interests.
Sara Fowler, D.M.D., M.S.

Associate Professor and Predoctoral Program Director
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Disclosure: I do not have any relevant financial / non-financial relationships with any proprietary interests.

Abstract: Introduction: The anterior maxillary infiltration injection is one of the most painful dental injections. The Dentapen is an electronic syringe that utilizes computer-controlled delivery technology to administer local anesthesia at a controlled rate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate injection pain of a maxillary lateral incisor infiltration injection using Dentapen with the slow (1mL/90 seconds) flow rate and ramp-up setting compared to a traditional syringe injection at a rate of 1.8 mL/60 seconds. Methods: One hundred thirty adults were administered maxillary lateral incisor infiltration injections with Dentapen and a traditional syringe at two separate appointments in a single-blind manner. The injections of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were given at a rate of 1mL/90 seconds with the ramp-up feature for Dentapen and 1.8 mL/60 seconds for the traditional injection using a 30-gauge needle. The pain of needle insertion and solution deposition was recorded on a visual analog scale. The subjects also selected their preferred injection technique. The data was analyzed statistically. Results: The pain of needle insertion was significantly less for the Dentapen injection than the traditional injection (p< 0.001). The pain of solution deposition was significantly less for the Dentapen injection than the traditional injection (p< 0.001). Females rated the pain of needle insertion and solution deposition higher than males for the Dentapen and traditional injections. Overall, 74.6% of subjects preferred the Dentapen injection over the traditional injection. Conclusions: The Dentapen, using the slow ramp-up mode, significantly reduced the pain of injection for maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations.