ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective pain management is crucial for the successful completion of dental procedures in children. Research has examined whether computerized intraosseous anesthesia (CIOA) could serve as a safe and viable substitute for the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique in pediatric patients. This study investigates the efficacy of CIOA, aiming to determine its effectiveness as an alternative anesthesia method. AIM: This study compared the efficacy of local intraosseous anesthesia using a computerized device (QuickSleeper 5) to conventional IANB anesthesia on cooperation and pain perception in children, using a randomized controlled trial design. DESIGN: The study included 88 healthy children, aged between 6 and 9 years, who required pulpotomy for their mandibular second primary molars. The study was approved by the local research ethics committee and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05193487). The heart rate and Venham behavior rating scale were recorded and analyzed. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Age and heart rate were compared using an independent t-test for intergroup comparison. The intragroup comparison was carried out using repeated measures ANOVA, followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze the Venham scale scores. The significance level was set at p < .05 RESULTS: The mean Venham score was slightly higher in the IANB group than in the CIOA group, but was not statistically significant (p = .852). One minute after anesthesia administration, the heart rate (beats per minute [BPM]) was significantly higher in the IANB group (92.30 ± 13.45) than in the CIOA group (83.20 ± 10.40) (p < .001). Additionally, there was a significant difference in heart rate values measured at different intervals within the IANB group. CONCLUSION: The QuickSleeper 5 device was found to be a feasible alternative for IANB in children over 6 years old.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the clinical performance and cost effectiveness of Silver Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART) and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations in primary molars over 12 months follow up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-seven children, aged 5-9 years old having at least one asymptomatic primary molar with active caries, were randomly assigned to either the test arm (SMART) or the control arm (ART). Clinical performance was assessed after 6 and 12-months using the modified United States Public Health Services criteria. The trial was registered at Clinical Trial.gov with a registration number (NCT03881020). Treatment time for each restoration was recorded, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were performed (p<0.05) and cost effectiveness was measured at the end of the study. RESULTS: Both techniques showed comparable clinical performance and the mean survival time was 11.8 and 11.6 months for SMART and ART restorations respectively with no detected significant differences (p=0.416). Mean treatment time for SMART restorations (7.8 min.), however, was significantly lower than ART (15 min.) (p < 0.001). SMART technique, also, showed statistically significant lower mean total cost per restoration (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though SMART and ART have comparable clinical performance and survival in single-surface occlusal restorations in primary molars, SMART is less time consuming and more cost effective. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Using SMART technique could change paradigms in caries management. Being a patient friendly and cost-effective approach, it could be adopted as a superior treatment option when dealing with young children, those with behavioral and medical challenges and for promoting access to oral care among the underprivileged.
