Background: Intraoral local anesthesia is essential for delivering dental care; however, injection of this local anesthetic is perceived as the most painful and distressing agent for children, parents, and healthcare providers.Reducing pain as much as possible is essential to ensure smooth subsequent treatment procedures, especially in pediatric dentistry. In clinical practice, oral sucrose administration has been reported to decrease the pain during heel lance and cold pressor tests in neonates and children. This study aimed to determine whether the prior administration of a 30% sucrose solution reduced the pain related to inferior alveolar nerve block in children. Methods: A total of 42 healthy children aged 7–10 years requiring dental treatment of mandibular molars involving inferior alveolar nerve block were recruited. The participants’ demographic details were recorded, height and weight were measured, and the anesthetic injection was delivered after receiving the respective intraoral sucrose solution and distilled water by the intervention (group 1) and control (group 2) group participants for 2 min.The subjective pain perceived during injection was measured using an animated emoji scale. The pain scores between the groups were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: The median pain score and range for the intervention and control groups were 4 (2 – 6) and 6 (4 – 8), respectively, and statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) were observed in the intervention group.Age, sex, height, and weight did not influence the analgesic effect of the sucrose solution. Conclusion Oral administration of sucrose may relieve pain associated with inferior alveolar nerve block in children.

Background: To compare pain perception during palatal injection administration in children aged 7-9 years while using pre-cooling of the injection site versus application of topical anesthesia as a pre-injection anesthetic during the six months.Method: A prospective randomized split-mouth crossover trial was conducted among 30 children aged 7-9 years, who received topical application of either a pencil of ice (test group) or 5% lignocaine gel (control group) for 2 min before injection. The primary and secondary outcome measures were pain perception and child satisfaction, measured by the composite pain score and the faces rating scale, respectively. Unpaired t-test was performed to determine significant differences between groups. Results: The test group had significantly lower pain scores for self-report and behavioral measures (P < 0.0001). The changes in physiological parameters at the baseline (P = 0.74) during (P = 0.37) and after (P = 0.88) the injection prick were not statistically significant. Children felt better by the pre-cooling method (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Ice application using a pencil of ice for 2 min reduced pain perception significantly compared to the use of a topical anesthetic. Moreover, ice application was preferred by children.

Background: In pediatric dentistry, fear and anxiety are common among children. Local anesthetics (LA) are widely used to control pain and reduce discomfort in children during dental treatment. Topical anesthetics play a vital role in reducing pain and the unpleasant sensation of a needle puncture in children. Peppermint oil has been extensively used for various diseases. However, its anesthetic properties remain unknown. Peppermint oil, used in mouthwashes, toothpastes, and other topical preparations has analgesic, anesthetic, and antiseptic properties. This study aimed to compare and evaluate pain perception following the topical application of peppermint oil versus lignocaine spray before an intraoral injection in children, aged 8-13 years.Method: Fifty-two children, aged between 8-13 years, who required local anesthesia for dental treatment were divided into two groups of 26 each by simple random sampling (Group 1: 0.2% peppermint oil and Group 2: lignocaine spray). In both groups, physiological measurements (e.g., heart rate) were recorded using pulse oximetry before, during, and after the procedure. Objective pain measurement (Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale) during administration and subjective measuremeant (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPRS)) after LA administration were recorded. This was followed by the required treatment of the child. Physiological parameters were compared between the two groups using an independent t-test for intergroup assessment and a paired t-test and repeated-measures ANOVA for intragroup comparisons. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the pain scores. Results: Intragroup mean heart rates, before, during, and after treatment were statistically significantly different (P < 0.05). However, the intergroup mean pulse rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean WBFPS score in the lignocaine spray group was 4.133 ± 2.06 was statistically different from that of the peppermint oil group (0.933 ± 1.03; P < 0.001*). The mean SEM score was significantly lower in the peppermint oil group than that in the lignocaine spray group (P = 0.006). No negative effects were observed in this study. Conclusion 0.2% peppermint oil was effective in reducing pain perception.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) distraction and counter-stimulation (CS) on dental anxiety and pain perception to local anesthesia in children. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded interventional clinical trial with a parallel design was used. Seventy children 7–11 years old who required local anesthesia (LA) for pulp therapy or tooth extraction were recruited and allocated to two groups with equal distribution based on the intervention. Group CS (n = 35) received CS and Group VR (n = 35) received VR distraction with ANTVR glasses. Anxiety levels (using pulse rate) were evaluated before, during, and after administration of local anesthesia, while pain perception was assessed immediately after the injection. Wong-Baker faces pain-rating scale (WBFPS), visual analog scale (VAS), and Venham's clinical anxiety rating scale (VCARS) were used for pain evaluation. Student's t-test was used to test the mean difference between groups, and repeated measures ANOVA was used to test the mean difference of pulse rates. RESULTS: Significant differences in mean pulse rates were observed in both groups, while children in the VR group had a higher reduction (P < 0.05), and the mean VCARS scores were significant in the VR group (P < 0.05). Mean WBFPS scores showed less pain perception to LA needle prick in the CS group while the same change was observed in the VR group with VAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: VR distraction is better than CS for reducing anxiety to injection in children undergoing extraction and pulpectomy.
Anesthesia, Local ; Anxiety ; Child ; Dental Anxiety ; Eyeglasses ; Glass ; Heart Rate ; Humans ; Needles ; Pain Perception ; Prospective Studies ; Pulpectomy ; Tooth Extraction ; Visual Analog Scale

Background: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of Physics Forceps in pediatric dental extractions. Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with a parallel-arm design and identical allocation ratio (1:1). Children (n=104) were randomly divided into two groups for extraction of mandibular primary teeth (group I: Physics Forceps; group II: conventional forceps). The outcome variables assessed in the study were the time taken for extraction, pre- and postoperative anxiety (using RMS pictorial scale), incidence of fractured teeth, and postoperative pain on the first and third days (using the Wong-Baker faces pain scale). Results: A significant reduction (P < 0.001) in intraoperative time, anxiety, and incidence of tooth fracture was confined to group I. The pain significantly reduced from the first to the third postoperative day in both groups, but the mean reduction in RMS scores in the physics forceps group was far better than that in the conventional forceps group. Conclusion Physics Forceps aid in extraction of primary teeth with minimal trauma to supporting structures, as well as reducing anxiety in the pediatric population.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of external vibrating devices and counterstimulation on a child's dental anxiety, apprehension, and pain perception during local anesthetic administration. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, single-blinded interventional, clinical trial. One hundred children aged 4–11 years, requiring pulp therapy or extraction under local anesthesia (LA), were recruited and allocated equally into two groups (1:1) based on the interventions used: Group BD (n = 50) received vibration using a Buzzy Ⓡ device {MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GE, USA} as a behavior guidance technique; Group CS (n = 50) received counterstimulation for the same technique. Anxiety levels [Venham's Clinical Anxiety Rating Scale (VCARS), Venham Picture Test (VPT), Pulse oximeter {Gibson, Fingertip Pulse Oximeter}, Beijing, China)] were assessed before, during, and after LA administration, while pain perception [Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)] was evaluated immediately after injection. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student’s t-test to assess the mean difference between the two groups and the repeated measures ANOVA for testing the mean difference in the pulse rates. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Significant differences in mean pulse rate values were observed in both groups. In contrast, the children in the BD group had higher diminution (P < 0.05), whereas the mean VCARS and VPT scores were conspicuous (P < 0.05). Based on the mean WBFPS and VAS scores, delayed pain perception after LA injection was more prominent in the BD group than in the CS group. Conclusion External vibration using a BuzzyⓇ device is comparatively better than counterstimulation in alleviating needle-associated anxiety in children requiring extraction and pulpectomy.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of external vibrating devices and counterstimulation on a child's dental anxiety, apprehension, and pain perception during local anesthetic administration. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, single-blinded interventional, clinical trial. One hundred children aged 4–11 years, requiring pulp therapy or extraction under local anesthesia (LA), were recruited and allocated equally into two groups (1:1) based on the interventions used: Group BD (n = 50) received vibration using a Buzzy Ⓡ device {MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GE, USA} as a behavior guidance technique; Group CS (n = 50) received counterstimulation for the same technique. Anxiety levels [Venham's Clinical Anxiety Rating Scale (VCARS), Venham Picture Test (VPT), Pulse oximeter {Gibson, Fingertip Pulse Oximeter}, Beijing, China)] were assessed before, during, and after LA administration, while pain perception [Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)] was evaluated immediately after injection. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student’s t-test to assess the mean difference between the two groups and the repeated measures ANOVA for testing the mean difference in the pulse rates. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Significant differences in mean pulse rate values were observed in both groups. In contrast, the children in the BD group had higher diminution (P < 0.05), whereas the mean VCARS and VPT scores were conspicuous (P < 0.05). Based on the mean WBFPS and VAS scores, delayed pain perception after LA injection was more prominent in the BD group than in the CS group. Conclusion External vibration using a BuzzyⓇ device is comparatively better than counterstimulation in alleviating needle-associated anxiety in children requiring extraction and pulpectomy.

Background: The objective of behavioral guidance is to establish effective communication that aligns with a child's requirements to manage disruptive behavior. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Tell-Show-Do and Ask-Tell-Ask techniques in managing dental anxiety in children during their initial appointment. Methods: The study included 50 children (28 boys and 22 girls) without any prior experience between the ages of 7 and 11 at their first dental visit. The children were randomly categorized into two groups: Group 1, Tell Shows Do, and Group 2, Ask-Tell-Ask. Subsequently, all children underwent noninvasive treatment procedures such as restorations, sealants, and oral prophylaxis. Furthermore, behavioral management techniques were employed based on the allocated group. Finally, anxiety levels for all children were assessed using the Raghavendra, Madhuri, and Sujata Pictorial Scale (RMS-PS) and heart rate at three different intervals (before, during, and after). The obtained data were entered into Microsoft Excel, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. A paired t-test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used to compare the mean and median values of the two groups and determine their effectiveness. Results: Children in the TSD group exhibited statistically significant heart rates and RMS-PS scores in intra-group comparisons. However, children in the ask-tell-ask group showed a significant reduction only in the RMS-PS scores (P < 0.001) but not in the measures used to assess heart rate (P < 0.001). Conclusion Tell-Show-Do was more effective than ask-tell-ask in alleviating dental anxiety in children. The simultaneous application of these two strategies can synergistically alleviate dental anxiety during a child’s initial dentist appointment.