MedTrace Logo

Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Pain Acceptance of Different Types of Injection Systems

NCT06892873 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 76

Last updated 2025-03-25

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare two different injection methods in children. The main question it aims to answer is:

Is the needle-free injection method more painless than the traditional dental method?

Two different methods will be used for children to perform anesthesia for extraction permanent molars.

Conditions

  • Dental Anesthesia

Interventions

DEVICE

Comfort-In

Application of Comfort-in Jet Injection Method Comfort-in jet injection method was used for palatal anesthesia of the primary molars. The device was placed 5 mm below the palatal gingival margin, close to the free gingiva, and with a steep angle. 0.2 ml of anesthetic solution was administered by pressing the jet injection system button. 1 mL Articaine Hydrochloride (Ultracaine D-S forte, Hoechst, Canada) containing 1/100,000 epinephrine was used as a local anesthetic agent in the injections. 38 patients were included in this group and the procedure was performed. After waiting for 2 minutes, the anesthetized area was probed with the help of a probe (probing gingiva) to check whether the anesthesia had taken effect. Afterwards, buccal infiltration anesthesia was performed with the help of a traditional dental injector and tooth extraction was performed.

OTHER

Traditional dental injection

Application of Traditional Dental Injection Method Palatal injection; It was applied 5-10 mm below the palatal gingival margin\*, on the attached gum, and with a 45-degree needle angle. After needle entry, 0.2 mL of anesthetic solution was stored when bone contact was removed. 1 mL Articaine Hydrochloride (Ultracaine D-S forte, Hoechst, Canada) containing 1/100,000 epinephrine and a 27 G dental needle were used as local anesthetic agents for injections. 38 patients were included in this group and the procedure was performed. After waiting for 2 minutes, the anesthetized area was probed with the help of a probe (probing gingiva) to check whether the anesthesia had taken effect. Afterwards, buccal infiltration anesthesia was performed with the help of a traditional dental injector and tooth extraction was performed.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Necmettin Erbakan University

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
4 Years
Max Age
11 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2024-01-22
Primary Completion
2024-08-30
Completion
2024-09-06

Countries

  • Turkey (Türkiye)

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT06892873 on ClinicalTrials.gov