OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effect of DentalVibe on the level of pain experienced during anesthetic injections using 2 different techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized crossover clinical trial evaluated 60 patients who required 2-session endodontic treatment. Labial infiltration (LI) anesthesia was administered in the anterior maxilla of 30 patients, while inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) was performed in the remaining 30 patients. 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine was injected at a rate of 1 mL/min using a 27-gauge needle. DentalVibe was randomly assigned to either the first or second injection session. A visual analog scale was used to determine participants' pain level during needle insertion and the anesthetic injection. The paired t-test was applied to assess the efficacy of DentalVibe for pain reduction. RESULTS: In LI anesthesia, the pain level was 12.0 ± 15.5 and 38.1 ± 21.0 during needle insertion and 19.1 ± 16.1 and 48.9 ± 24.6 during the anesthetic injection using DentalVibe and the conventional method, respectively. In IANB, the pain level was 14.1 ± 15.9 and 35.1 ± 20.8 during needle insertion and 17.3 ± 14.2 and 39.5 ± 20.8 during the anesthetic injection using DentalVibe and the conventional method, respectively. DentalVibe significantly decreased the level of pain experienced during needle insertion and the anesthetic injection in anterior LI and mandibular IANB anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that DentalVibe can be used to reduce the level of pain experienced by adult patients during needle insertion and anesthetic injection.
Adult ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Local ; Humans ; Lidocaine ; Mandibular Nerve ; Maxilla ; Methods ; Needles ; Visual Analog Scale

Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). Conclusions Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.