Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study

Ananthu H; Ashwin Rao; Srikant Natarajan; Karuna Yarmunja Mahabala; Anupama Nayak

doi:10.12688/f1000research.138340.1

Home Browse Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Clinical trial

Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Ananthu H^1,2, Ashwin Rao ², Srikant Natarajan³, Karuna Yarmunja Mahabala², Anupama Nayak²

Ananthu H^1,2, Ashwin Rao ², [...] Srikant Natarajan³, Karuna Yarmunja Mahabala², Anupama Nayak²

PUBLISHED 15 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
² Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, NITTE (Deemed to be University), AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences (ABSMIDS), Mangalore, Karnataka, India
³ Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Ananthu H
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ashwin Rao
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation

Srikant Natarajan
Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation

Karuna Yarmunja Mahabala
Roles: Resources, Validation

Anupama Nayak
Roles: Resources, Validation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background: Local anaesthesia is the backbone of pain management. However, the administration of a local anaesthetic injection itself is considered a painful procedure and triggers fear and anxiety in the patient.
Methods: A split-mouth randomised controlled crossover trial was designed to study the efficacy of an “external cold and vibrating” device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in children. A total of 40 children who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were evaluated for pain response following administration of IANB with and without the “external cold and vibrating” device. Randomisation was performed to determine whether the subject received the control intervention first or the test intervention first. The intensity of the pain response and discomfort were recorded using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and the Faces Legs Activity Cry and Consolability scale.
Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the pain response between the test group and the control group (p<0.001). Females reported a higher pain response than males, with a statistically significant difference, when the FLACC scores were compared.
Conclusions: The “external cold and vibrating” device reduced discomfort during the administration of an IANB in children selected for the study.

Keywords

Pain, Pain management, Analgesia, Local anaesthesia, Dental anaesthesia, Nerve block, Distraction, Paediatric dentistry

Corresponding author: Ashwin Rao

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 H A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: H A, Rao A, Natarajan S et al. Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:984 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.138340.1) First published: 15 Aug 2023, 12:984 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.138340.1) Latest published: 15 Aug 2023, 12:984 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.138340.1)

Introduction

Pain management in patients has been one of the most influential factors affecting the success of any dental treatment. In fact, the fear and anxiety surrounding dental procedures has forced patients to resort to a more ‘wait and watch’ approach, delaying or avoiding the dental treatment as much as possible.¹ Dental anaesthesia has always played a pivotal role in the management of pain in patients. However, the very procedure inducing anaesthesia, with the local anaesthetic injection, is considered a painful procedure and triggers fear and anxiety in the patient.² Trypanophobia, or the fear for needles or injections, is considered as one of the major sources of pain in dental patients.³ This clinical problem becomes even more challenging in paediatric patients.

The search for methods to administer a painless dental anaesthetic injection has led to the discovery of various innovative techniques. Several devices and methods have been proposed to tackle this clinical problem, including the use of expensive computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery systems.⁴ However, an ideal solution has not been found so far.

One of the techniques that developed over time to help reduce the discomfort during a local anaesthetic injection for dental treatment, is desensitising the injection site, through precooling, employing vibration techniques or a combination of both.⁵ Distraction is a safe and reliable behaviour management strategy that helps minimise pain and anxiety by directing the attention away from painful stimuli, during the anaesthesia administration. The use of distraction in paediatric patients during local anaesthetic injections, through the application of cold temperature and vibration techniques, has garnered much attention in recent times.⁶^–¹¹

External cold and vibrating devices propose to reduce pain by altering the individual’s perception to pain. It is hypothesized that the distractive environment created by the vibrating device or buzzing device, coupled with cold, causes the brain cells to relay the non-pain signals (vibration or cold) generated, masking the pain signals triggered by the injection.¹²^,¹³ This masking effect of pain is brought about by creating a confusion in the perception of signals by the pain pathway.¹³^,¹⁴ Studies performed have shown the effectiveness of this concept of pain management in immunisations and venepuncture.¹²^,¹³

The effectiveness of the “external cold and vibrating” device while administering the maxillary infiltration anaesthesia in children has been reported in literature.¹⁵ However, its efficacy to reduce discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in children has not been studied. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of an “external cold and vibrating device” (Buzzy Mini Personal Striped with ice wings, MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA), in reducing discomfort during the administration of an IANB in children.

Methods

Study design

This randomized controlled clinical trial followed a split mouth, crossover study design with a 1:1 balanced allocation ratio. This study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Manipal College of Dental Sciences (MCODS), Mangalore (Reference number 19086) and the trial was registered at the clinical trial registry-India (Registration number CTRI/2020/07/026702). The trial was carried out at the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry over a period of 23 months. Before enrolment, all participants and their parents/guardians signed written informed consent forms. All procedures were conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration 1975.

Study subjects

The study was conducted on 40 children who reported to the outpatient department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MCODS Mangalore, MAHE (Deemed to be University), Mangaluru, Karnataka.

Sample size calculation

Based on the key article by Alanazi et al.,¹⁵ the mean and standard deviation of pain response in test and control groups in males was 2 ± 0.32 and 7 ± 0.27 respectively. With 5% alpha error, 90% power of the study and a clinically significant difference of 0.2 units, the required sample in each group was calculated to be 40. The following formula was used to calculate the sample size (N),

N = \frac{2 {(Z_{1 - α / 2} + Z_{1 - β})}^{2} σ^{2}}{d^{2}}

The inclusion criteria for the study were children:

• Aged six to 10 years with no prior experience of an intraoral local anaesthetic injection
• Rated as definitely positive or positive on the Frankl behaviour rating scale
• Classified ASA I according to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS)
• With any mandibular tooth/teeth indicated for bilateral dental procedures that warranted the use of an IANB.

The exclusion criteria were children with a:

• History of recent hospitalisation or surgery
• History of central nervous system depressants or analgesics consumed within eight hours prior to the treatment
• An existing orofacial oedema, infection, abscess or the presence of systemic comorbidities with special dental treatment considerations.

Written informed assent from the parents and written informed consent from the children were obtained respectively. The control intervention was carried on one side of the patient whereas the test intervention was performed on the contralateral side. The order in which the subjects received the interventions was allocated by randomisation. The right side of the patient received the intervention in the first visit (either control or test) whereas the left side received the intervention in the second visit (either control or test). The wash-out period between the two visits was one week.¹⁶

Randomisation

Randomisation was performed to determine whether the subject received the control intervention first or the test intervention first. This was done by the statistician who was otherwise not involved in the study. A block randomization was done as it helped ensure a 1:1 sample allocation ratio, which meant that equal number of samples were subjected to both the test intervention as well as the control intervention on their first visit. Block randomisation was done using a varied block size of 2 and 4. Allocation concealment was done using opaque envelopes. The block sequences (AB, BA, AABB and so on) was computer-generated, following which the statistician performed random allocation of the samples to the blocks using the random number table. The treatment intervention group codes so generated, ‘A’ or ‘B’, wherein ‘A’ stood for the control intervention (administration of IANB without Buzzy) and ‘B’ stood for the test intervention (administration of IANB with Buzzy), were entered into cards along with the sample number, which was placed in numbered and sequentially arranged envelopes. The cards were wrapped in aluminium foil to confirm that the envelopes appeared opaque. The envelopes were sealed. In this way, the predictability of the sample allocation which is the disadvantage of block randomization was overcome. The envelopes were opened just prior to the introduction of the interventions, to avoid bias.¹⁷

The treatment protocol described in the envelope, was carried out on the right side of the patient while the alternative treatment was done on the contralateral side in the subsequent visit.

Interventions

The site of needle penetration was topically anesthetized with 20% benzocaine topical anaesthetic gel (‘Precaine B, Pascal International, Bellevue, WA, USA’) four minutes prior to the injection in both the groups. The children assigned to the control group were administered the IANB with a conventional technique.¹⁸ The contents of the entire cartridge containing 1.8 mL of 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline was injected¹⁹ (Septodont Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra, India).

The children assigned to the test group were administered the IANB coupled with the “external cold and vibrating” device (Buzzy Mini Personal Striped with Ice Wings, MMJ labs, Atlanta, GA, USA). The Buzzy (Figure 1) is a bee-shaped device which offers vibrations, powered by two alkaline AAA batteries and cold temperature offered by the detachable, refrigerable ice wings.²⁰ Prior to the delivery of anaesthesia by injection, the refrigerated wings were attached to the bee shaped body of the device, following which the child was asked to hold and keep the device on the cheek area, corresponding to the ramus of the mandible (Figure 2). After thirty seconds, the administration of IANB was initiated, with the Buzzy device switched on manually. The device was switched off, upon completion of the administration of the anaesthetic solution.

Figure 1. External cold and vibrating device (Buzzy Mini with VibraCool Wings, MMJ labs, Atlanta, GA, USA).

Figure 2. IANB administration coupled with the Buzzy device.

Each child was instructed to quantify the pain experienced during the injection using the “Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale” (WBFPRS) following administration of the IANB. The WBFPRS is a horizontal scale of six hand-drawn faces, scored from 0 to 10, that range from a smiling ‘no hurt’ face on the left to a crying ‘hurts worst’ face on the right. It is simple to use and implement, and it is well accepted by children, parents, and doctors.²¹ However, it being a self- reported scale, the child’s report of pain may be affected by developmental, cognitive and situational issues.²² To overcome this drawback, another scale was used as an adjunct to this scale. This was the Faces Legs Activity Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale, which assesses five different aspects of the child’s behaviour. This scale is shown to have good validity and reliability. The five categories are assessed in order to rate pain wherein each category is ranked on a three-point scale (0-2), resulting in a summary score of (0-10).²³^,²⁴ An independent precalibrated evaluator, rated the children on the FLACC scale during the injection.

Statistical analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (version 20.0) software package was used to analyse the data. The comparison between responses of the participants to pain on the WBFPRS at the test visit and control visit and the observed behaviour of participants using the FLACC scale at the test visit and control visit was measured by Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at 5% (i.e. <0.05).

Results

In total, 40 children aged six to 10 years, with any mandibular tooth/teeth indicated for bilateral dental procedures that warrants the use of an IANB, were recruited for the study. The 40 recruited children comprised 13 (32.5%) females and 27 (67.5%) males with a mean age of 7.90 years (S.D ± 1.533). The percentage of males recruited for the study were almost double that of females.

Comparison of pain response during administration of the IANB in the control group and test group (Table 1)

Table 1. Comparison of pain response between (i) Administration of IANB without Buzzy^® (control group) and Administration of IANB with Buzzy^® (test group) using Wilcoxon signed rank test.

		N	Mean±SD	Median (IQR)	Range (Min-Max)	z value	p value
F	WBFPRS control	13	3.54±1.45	4(2,4)	2 to 6	-3.127	0.002
F	WBFPRS test	13	1.54±0.88	2(2,2)	0 to 2	-3.127	0.002
F	FLACC control	13	4.38±0.77	5(4,5)	3 to 5	-3.256	0.001
F	FLACC test	13	1.69±0.75	2(1,2)	1 to 3	-3.256	0.001
M	WBFPRS control	27	3.19±1.39	2(2,4)	2 to 6	-4.866	<0.001
M	WBFPRS test	27	0.81±1	0(0,2)	0 to 2	-4.866	<0.001
M	FLACC control	27	3.63±0.84	3(3,4)	3 to 6	-4.678	<0.001
M	FLACC test	27	1.15±0.72	1(1,1)	0 to 3	-4.678	<0.001
Total	WBFPRS control	40	3.3±1.4	4(2,4)	2 to 6	-5.767	<0.001
Total	WBFPRS test	40	1.05±1.01	2(0,2)	0 to 2	-5.767	<0.001
Total	FLACC control	40	3.88±0.88	4(3,5)	3 to 6	-5.655	<0.001
Total	FLACC test	40	1.32±0.76	1(1,2)	0 to 3	-5.655	<0.001

• Among females, on comparison of the median score values of WBFPRS control and WBFPRS test, the median score value of WBFPRS control was higher than that of the WBFPRS test by two units with a p-value of 0.002 (statistically significant).
• Among females, on comparison of the median score values of FLACC control and FLACC test, the median score value of FLACC control was higher than that of test by three units with a p-value of 0.001 (statistically significant).
• Among males, on comparison of the median score values of WBFPRS control and WBFPRS test, the median score value of WBFPRS control was higher than that of the WBFPRS test by two units with a p-value <0.001 (statistically significant).
• Among males, on comparison of the median score values of FLACC control and FLACC test, the median score value of FLACC control is higher than that of test by two units with a p-value <0.001 (statistically significant).
• Analysing the 40 participants, the median score value of WBFPRS control was higher than that of test by two units with a standard score (Z value) of -5.767. The WBFPRS score comparison gave a p-value <0.001 which was statistically significant.
• Analysing the 40 participants, the median score value of FLACC control was higher than that of the test by three units with a standard score (Z value) of -5.655. The FLACC score comparison gave a p-value <0.001 which is statistically significant.

The inference from the above statements was that pain scores were higher for both the WBFPRS and FLACC scales in the control group.

Discussion

The results of the present study showed that the experimental Buzzy device demonstrated a statistically significant effect in reducing self-reported and observer-reported reaction to pain during the administration of the IANB. These findings support the results of previous studies, which had reported success with the combined use of cold and vibration to alleviate discomfort in children undergoing maxillary infiltration dental anaesthesia.¹⁵

The Buzzy is an economical, versatile, quickly vibrating plastic device designed like a bee, which combines high-frequency vibration and cold temperature to control sharp pain. The pain control mechanism is on the basis of the “gate control” pain relief theory by confusing the body’s own nerves, thereby dulling or eliminating sharp pain. The brain closes the gate on pain signals when nerves receive non-painful signals such as vibration or cold. Another mechanism by which the Buzzy device claims its effect is through “diffuse noxious inhibitory control” or DNIC wherein certain noxious signals are dampened out by the brain. The intense cold also activates a supraspinal modulation raising the body’s overall pain threshold.²⁰^,²⁵

As pain and discomfort are subjective and vary from child to child, it’s difficult to compare the effectiveness of one approach to another when employed separately in different children.¹⁴ To avoid such variances, the split-mouth cross-over design was employed, which has been used in other trials investigating the effectiveness of the Buzzy device.⁹^,¹⁰ Crossover trials are most appropriate for studies related to pain as well as when the treatment effects are reversible and short-lived.²⁶

Randomisation was performed to determine whether the subject would receive the control intervention first or the test intervention first. A block randomization was done as it helped ensure a 1:1 sample allocation ratio, which meant that equal number of samples were subjected to both the test intervention as well as the control intervention on their first visit.

This study included children aged six to 10 years old, as this has been suggested as the age at which cognitive growth begins to reveal itself.²⁷ This will ensure adequate communication between the operator and the child for the purposes of the study. Inal et al. in 2012²⁸ and Moadad et al. in 2016²⁹ recruited a similar age group in their studies.

In the present study, two separate pain scales were used to ensure the reproducibility of the pain assessment.

Although subjective pain assessment is typically deemed the gold standard for assessing pain, children’s perceptions of pain might well be exaggerated, especially soon after the treatment. Pain is a highly complex and multidimensional attribute that depends on various factors such as location, quality of sensory perception and the cognitive ability of the child. Use of only a subjective scale may not reflect the true pain and discomfort experienced by the child patient. Hence observational pain scales should be used in conjunction with subjective scales. For pain evaluation in young children, the FLACC scale has been proven to showcase great validity and reliability. Hence, in this study both self-report WBFPRS and the observational FLACC scale was used.

This study selected only children rated definitely positive and positive on the Frankl rating scale. This was done to negate the effect of behaviour on the results of the study. Lack of blinding, which could not be carried out due to the nature of the intervention, was also a shortcoming of this trial

Future studies can include anxious children or children of a younger age group to study the effects of the external cold and vibrating device.

Conclusions

The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the pain response when the control group and the test group were compared (p<0.001). Based on the inferences from the current study it can be concluded that the “external cold and vibrating” device reduced the discomfort during the administration of an IANB in children selected for the study.

Future directions

Research trials should be conducted in the future to explore the effectiveness of the “external cold and vibrating” device during the various different techniques of local anaesthesia administration and among children belonging to different age groups.

Authors’ contributions

All the authors have equal contribution to this research in manuscript preparation, data collection and interpretation.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Master data for the control group and the test group.xlsx, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23498491.v1.³⁰

This project contains the underlying following data:

Data file 1: Master data for the control group and the test group

Data file 2: Results table

Data file 3: Sample size calculation

Extended data

Figshare: Extended data, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23498508.v1.³¹

This project contains the underlying following data:

Data file 1: Child assent form

Data file 2: Clinical trial protocol

Data file 3: FLACC Scale

Data file 4: IEC Approval Thesis

Data file 5: Informed consent sheet

Data file 6: Pain Rating Scale

Data file 7: Patient information sheet

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: CONSORT check list and flow chart for “Efficacy of an External Cold and Vibrating Device in Reducing Discomfort during the Administration of an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Children: A Split Mouth Randomised Crossover Study”, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23498673.v1.³²

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore for all the help and support.

References

1. Wiederhold MD, Gao K, Wiederhold BK: Clinical use of virtual reality distraction system to reduce anxiety and pain in dental procedures. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014; 17(6): 359–365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Czarnecki ML, Turner HN, Collins PM, et al.: Procedural pain management: a position statement with clinical practice recommendations. Pain Manag Nurs. 2011; 12(2): 95–111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Friedrichsdorf SJ, Postier A, Eull D, et al.: Pain Outcomes in a US Children’s Hospital: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015; 5(1): 18–26. Publisher Full Text
4. Jälevik B, Klingberg G: Pain sensation and injection techniques in maxillary dento-alveolar surgery procedures in children--a comparison between conventional and computerized injection techniques (The Wand). Swed Dent J. 2014; 38(2): 67–75. PubMed Abstract
5. Aminah M, Nagar P, Singh P, et al.: Comparison of topical anesthetic gel, pre-cooling, vibration and buffered local anesthesia on the pain perception of pediatric patients during the administration of local anesthesia in routine dental procedures. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2017; 4(2): 400–403.
6. Aminabadi NA, Farahani RM: The effect of pre-cooling the injection site on pediatric pain perception during the administration of local anesthesia. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009; 10(3): 43–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Ghaderi F, Banakar S, Rostami S: Effect of pre-cooling injection site on pain perception in pediatric dentistry: “A randomized clinical trial”. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013; 10(6): 790–794. PubMed Abstract
8. Hameed NN, Sargod SS, Bhat SS, et al.: Effectiveness of precooling the injection site using tetrafluorethane on pain perception in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2018; 36: 296–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Ching D, Finkelman M, Loo CY: Effect of the DentalVibe injection system on pain during local anesthesia injections in adolescent patients. Pediatr Dent. 2014; 36(1): 51–55. PubMed Abstract
10. Shilpapriya M, Jayanthi M, Reddy VN, et al.: Effectiveness of new vibration delivery system on pain associated with injection of local anesthesia in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33: 173–176. Publisher Full Text
11. Menni AC, Radhakrishna AN, Prasad MG: DentalVibe^® versus lignocaine hydrochloride 2% gel in pain reduction during inferior alveolar nerve block in children. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020; 20(6): 397–402. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Canbulat N, Ayhan F, Inal S: Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Manag Nurs. 2015; 16(1): 33–39. Publisher Full Text
13. Canbulat Şahiner N, İnal S, Sevim AA: The effect of combined stimulation of external cold and vibration during immunization on pain and anxiety levels in children. J Perianesth Nurs. 2015; 30(3): 228–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Baxter AL, Lawson ML: Methodological concerns comparing buzzy to transilluminator device. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2014; 29(1): 114–115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Alanazi KJ, Pani S, AlGhanim N: Efficacy of external cold and a vibrating device in reducing discomfort of dental injections in children: A split mouth randomised crossover study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019; 20(2): 79–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Yogesh Kumar TD, John JB, Asokan S, et al.: Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33(3): 223–228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Pandis N, Chung B, Scherer RW, et al.: CONSORT 2010 statement:extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials. BMJ. 2017; 357: j2835. Publisher Full Text
18. Malamed SF: Basic injection technique. Handbook of Local Anesthesia. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 5th ed.2004; 159–169.
19. Soxman JA, Malamed SF: Local anesthesia for the pediatric patient. Handbook of Clinical Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 27(1): 5–12.
20. Baxter AL, Cohen LL, McElvery HL, et al.: An integration of vibration and cold relieves venipuncture pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Dec; 27(12): 1151–1156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Garra G, Singer AJ, Taira BR, et al.: Validation of the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale in pediatric emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17(1): 50–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Stinson JN, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, et al.: Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. Pain. 2006; 125(1-2): 143–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Merkel S, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S: Pain assessment in infants and young children: the FLACC scale. Am J Nurs. 2002; 102(10): 55–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Nilsson S, Finnström B, Kokinsky E: The FLACC behavioral scale for procedural pain assessment in children aged 5–16 years. PaediatrAnaesth. 2008; 18(8): 767–774.
25. Baxter AL, Leong T, Mathew B: External thermomechanical stimulation versus vapocoolant for adult venipuncture pain: pilot data on a novel device. Clin J Pain. 2009; 25(8): 705–710. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Evans SR: Clinical trial structures. J Exp Stroke Transl Med. 2010; 3(1): 8–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Blomqvist M, Ek U, Fernell E, et al.: Cognitive ability and dental fear and anxiety. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013; 121(2): 117–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Inal S, Kelleci M: Relief of pain during blood specimen collection in pediatric patients. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2012; 37(5): 339–345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Moadad N, Kozman K, Shahine R, et al.: Distraction Using the BUZZY for Children During an IV Insertion. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016; 31(1): 64–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Ananthu H: Master data for the control group and the test group.xlsx. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text
31. Ananthu H: Extended data. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text
32. Ananthu H: Reporting guidelines. figshare. [Reporting guidelines].2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
² Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, NITTE (Deemed to be University), AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences (ABSMIDS), Mangalore, Karnataka, India
³ Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Ananthu H
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ashwin Rao
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation

Srikant Natarajan
Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation

Karuna Yarmunja Mahabala
Roles: Resources, Validation

Anupama Nayak
Roles: Resources, Validation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 15 Aug 2023, 12:984

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.138340.1

Copyright

© 2023 H A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

H A, Rao A, Natarajan S et al. Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:984 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.138340.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 15 Aug 2023

Views

5

Reviewer Report 27 Mar 2024

Kavitha Ramar, Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, SRM Kattankulathur Dental College, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.151530.r197889

This clinical trial addresses one of the most important challenges faced by dentists around the globe - managing pediatric dental patients and it has done justice in validating an excellent practical solution. The research article has been well presented, and ... Continue reading

This clinical trial addresses one of the most important challenges faced by dentists around the globe - managing pediatric dental patients and it has done justice in validating an excellent practical solution. The research article has been well presented, and is scripted with detailed descriptions under all the sections.
The Title of the study “Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study” is simple, understandable and outlines the theme of the research in a nutshell.
The Abstract is precise, well-structured and has been summarized adequately.
The Introduction provides an excellent opening to the theme of the research wherein the challenges faced by pediatric dentists and the techniques they employ to manage pediatric dental patients while administering local anaesthesia have been clearly outlined. The external cold and vibrating device Buzzy is a novel armamentarium which has been utilised by doctors and other healthcare givers while managing pediatric patients, however the limited research in the field of dentistry has triggered the researchers to come up with this proposed study, which they have substantiated with proper evidence.
The authors have succeeded in clearly chalking out the necessary armamentarium utilised for the research. A step wise methodology has been presented, which would help fellow researchers who wish to pursue their research further in the same arena. A randomised clinical trial is evaluated by how comprehensibly the randomisation process has been described and followed. The authors have succeeded in this aspect by outlining the randomisation process in a very systematic manner. The split mouth design of the study has also been justified. Thus, the selection of the study design is justified and the work showcases academic merit.
The results and interpretations are sound and supported by relevant and current evidence. The authors have stated the findings, highlighting key aspects in tables and figures. Commenting on the statistical analysis, by employing the Wilcoxon test, the authors have helped understand the study results better.
The Discussion part is excellently structured and has been elucidated in a very appropriate manner justifying all the results and findings of the study. The discussion of the findings is suitable, gives answers to the research objectives, incorporating substantial support from literature. Cross references with similar as well as contrasting research have been appropriately described by the authors, which give a scope of better understanding for fellow researchers.
The authors have even mentioned the drawbacks of the trial, which is appreciable. One of the drawbacks of the study is the selection of only cooperative children which has also been mentioned by the authors. By mentioning the limitations of the study, authors have hinted at the scope for the improvement of the study.
The conclusions are sound, justified and logically explained, and are supported by the results. No revisions are required.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Nano dentistry, special children, behaviour management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

13

Reviewer Report 28 Dec 2023

Meenu Mittal, ESIC Dental College & Hospital, Delhi, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.151530.r229569

It's a good research but some details/corrections are required:

Methods:
1.Correction regarding Assent/consent required.
2. Intervention- It is not mentioned why the injection was given and which procedure was performed post injection for treatment of ... Continue reading

It's a good research but some details/corrections are required:

Methods:
1.Correction regarding Assent/consent required.
2. Intervention- It is not mentioned why the injection was given and which procedure was performed post injection for treatment of which tooth.

Results:
1.Needs to be compiled, written haphazardly with text matter repeated.

Discussion:
1.The description about pain scales etc. to be shortened
2. There is no comparison with other studies discussed, which needs to be added.
Limitations: To be elaborated.
Language: Small corrections in grammar needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Local anesthesia in pediatric patients

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

27

Reviewer Report 04 Sep 2023

Vivek Padmanabhan, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.151530.r197890

Good research and may help to resolve this ambiguous part of pediatric dentistry, however the practical applicability remains to be seen.

Please note that the entire article has been split into a lot of paragraphs. Kindly revise ... Continue reading

Good research and may help to resolve this ambiguous part of pediatric dentistry, however the practical applicability remains to be seen.

Please note that the entire article has been split into a lot of paragraphs. Kindly revise it.

The part where it is mentioned consent and assent was taken please note that assents are taken from children and consent is taken from adults, so correct it accordingly.

In the statistical analysis, it has been mentioned Wilcoxon has been used, kindly elaborate how this test helps understand the study better, also give complete details of the SPSS as in brand name and associated details.

In the discussion please compare the results of your study with other studies done worldwide and then either defend the findings or agree with others.
The first sentence of conclusion is not necessary. in conclusion also mention about differences between males and females as I believe that was one of your objectives.

The future recommendations need to be provided based upon the limitations of the present study also please note that the sample number should also be increased in future studies, this can be added as both drawback and address it in future recommendations.

Please note that the references can be kept within a maximum of 10 years else it is not clinically significant for today and need not be cited in the present study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Pediatric Dentistry, Dentistry, Epidemiological studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Aug 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 15 Aug 23	read	read	read

Vivek Padmanabhan, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
Meenu Mittal, ESIC Dental College & Hospital, Delhi, India
Kavitha Ramar, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

27 Mar 2024 | for Version 1

Kavitha Ramar, Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, SRM Kattankulathur Dental College, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This clinical trial addresses one of the most important challenges faced by dentists around the globe - managing pediatric dental patients and it has done justice in validating an excellent practical solution. The research article has been well presented, and is scripted with detailed descriptions under all the sections.
The Title of the study “Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study” is simple, understandable and outlines the theme of the research in a nutshell.
The Abstract is precise, well-structured and has been summarized adequately.
The Introduction provides an excellent opening to the theme of the research wherein the challenges faced by pediatric dentists and the techniques they employ to manage pediatric dental patients while administering local anaesthesia have been clearly outlined. The external cold and vibrating device Buzzy is a novel armamentarium which has been utilised by doctors and other healthcare givers while managing pediatric patients, however the limited research in the field of dentistry has triggered the researchers to come up with this proposed study, which they have substantiated with proper evidence.
The authors have succeeded in clearly chalking out the necessary armamentarium utilised for the research. A step wise methodology has been presented, which would help fellow researchers who wish to pursue their research further in the same arena. A randomised clinical trial is evaluated by how comprehensibly the randomisation process has been described and followed. The authors have succeeded in this aspect by outlining the randomisation process in a very systematic manner. The split mouth design of the study has also been justified. Thus, the selection of the study design is justified and the work showcases academic merit.
The results and interpretations are sound and supported by relevant and current evidence. The authors have stated the findings, highlighting key aspects in tables and figures. Commenting on the statistical analysis, by employing the Wilcoxon test, the authors have helped understand the study results better.
The Discussion part is excellently structured and has been elucidated in a very appropriate manner justifying all the results and findings of the study. The discussion of the findings is suitable, gives answers to the research objectives, incorporating substantial support from literature. Cross references with similar as well as contrasting research have been appropriately described by the authors, which give a scope of better understanding for fellow researchers.
The authors have even mentioned the drawbacks of the trial, which is appreciable. One of the drawbacks of the study is the selection of only cooperative children which has also been mentioned by the authors. By mentioning the limitations of the study, authors have hinted at the scope for the improvement of the study.
The conclusions are sound, justified and logically explained, and are supported by the results. No revisions are required.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Nano dentistry, special children, behaviour management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

28 Dec 2023 | for Version 1

Meenu Mittal, ESIC Dental College & Hospital, Delhi, India

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

It's a good research but some details/corrections are required:

Methods:
1.Correction regarding Assent/consent required.
2. Intervention- It is not mentioned why the injection was given and which procedure was performed post injection for treatment of which tooth.

Results:
1.Needs to be compiled, written haphazardly with text matter repeated.

Discussion:
1.The description about pain scales etc. to be shortened
2. There is no comparison with other studies discussed, which needs to be added.
Limitations: To be elaborated.
Language: Small corrections in grammar needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Local anesthesia in pediatric patients

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

04 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Vivek Padmanabhan, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Good research and may help to resolve this ambiguous part of pediatric dentistry, however the practical applicability remains to be seen.

Please note that the entire article has been split into a lot of paragraphs. Kindly revise it.

The part where it is mentioned consent and assent was taken please note that assents are taken from children and consent is taken from adults, so correct it accordingly.

In the statistical analysis, it has been mentioned Wilcoxon has been used, kindly elaborate how this test helps understand the study better, also give complete details of the SPSS as in brand name and associated details.

In the discussion please compare the results of your study with other studies done worldwide and then either defend the findings or agree with others.
The first sentence of conclusion is not necessary. in conclusion also mention about differences between males and females as I believe that was one of your objectives.

The future recommendations need to be provided based upon the limitations of the present study also please note that the sample number should also be increased in future studies, this can be added as both drawback and address it in future recommendations.

Please note that the references can be kept within a maximum of 10 years else it is not clinically significant for today and need not be cited in the present study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Pediatric Dentistry, Dentistry, Epidemiological studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Wiederhold MD, Gao K, Wiederhold BK: Clinical use of virtual reality distraction system to reduce anxiety and pain in dental procedures. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014; 17(6): 359–365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Czarnecki ML, Turner HN, Collins PM, et al.: Procedural pain management: a position statement with clinical practice recommendations. Pain Manag Nurs. 2011; 12(2): 95–111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Friedrichsdorf SJ, Postier A, Eull D, et al.: Pain Outcomes in a US Children’s Hospital: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015; 5(1): 18–26. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Jälevik B, Klingberg G: Pain sensation and injection techniques in maxillary dento-alveolar surgery procedures in children--a comparison between conventional and computerized injection techniques (The Wand). Swed Dent J. 2014; 38(2): 67–75. PubMed Abstract

[5] 5. Aminah M, Nagar P, Singh P, et al.: Comparison of topical anesthetic gel, pre-cooling, vibration and buffered local anesthesia on the pain perception of pediatric patients during the administration of local anesthesia in routine dental procedures. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2017; 4(2): 400–403.

[6] 6. Aminabadi NA, Farahani RM: The effect of pre-cooling the injection site on pediatric pain perception during the administration of local anesthesia. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009; 10(3): 43–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Ghaderi F, Banakar S, Rostami S: Effect of pre-cooling injection site on pain perception in pediatric dentistry: “A randomized clinical trial”. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013; 10(6): 790–794. PubMed Abstract

[8] 8. Hameed NN, Sargod SS, Bhat SS, et al.: Effectiveness of precooling the injection site using tetrafluorethane on pain perception in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2018; 36: 296–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Ching D, Finkelman M, Loo CY: Effect of the DentalVibe injection system on pain during local anesthesia injections in adolescent patients. Pediatr Dent. 2014; 36(1): 51–55. PubMed Abstract

[10] 10. Shilpapriya M, Jayanthi M, Reddy VN, et al.: Effectiveness of new vibration delivery system on pain associated with injection of local anesthesia in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33: 173–176. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Menni AC, Radhakrishna AN, Prasad MG: DentalVibe^® versus lignocaine hydrochloride 2% gel in pain reduction during inferior alveolar nerve block in children. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020; 20(6): 397–402. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Canbulat N, Ayhan F, Inal S: Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Manag Nurs. 2015; 16(1): 33–39. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Canbulat Şahiner N, İnal S, Sevim AA: The effect of combined stimulation of external cold and vibration during immunization on pain and anxiety levels in children. J Perianesth Nurs. 2015; 30(3): 228–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Baxter AL, Lawson ML: Methodological concerns comparing buzzy to transilluminator device. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2014; 29(1): 114–115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Alanazi KJ, Pani S, AlGhanim N: Efficacy of external cold and a vibrating device in reducing discomfort of dental injections in children: A split mouth randomised crossover study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019; 20(2): 79–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Yogesh Kumar TD, John JB, Asokan S, et al.: Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33(3): 223–228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Pandis N, Chung B, Scherer RW, et al.: CONSORT 2010 statement:extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials. BMJ. 2017; 357: j2835. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Malamed SF: Basic injection technique. Handbook of Local Anesthesia. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 5th ed.2004; 159–169.

[19] 19. Soxman JA, Malamed SF: Local anesthesia for the pediatric patient. Handbook of Clinical Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 27(1): 5–12.

[20] 20. Baxter AL, Cohen LL, McElvery HL, et al.: An integration of vibration and cold relieves venipuncture pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Dec; 27(12): 1151–1156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Garra G, Singer AJ, Taira BR, et al.: Validation of the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale in pediatric emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17(1): 50–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Stinson JN, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, et al.: Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. Pain. 2006; 125(1-2): 143–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Merkel S, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S: Pain assessment in infants and young children: the FLACC scale. Am J Nurs. 2002; 102(10): 55–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Nilsson S, Finnström B, Kokinsky E: The FLACC behavioral scale for procedural pain assessment in children aged 5–16 years. PaediatrAnaesth. 2008; 18(8): 767–774.

[25] 25. Baxter AL, Leong T, Mathew B: External thermomechanical stimulation versus vapocoolant for adult venipuncture pain: pilot data on a novel device. Clin J Pain. 2009; 25(8): 705–710. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Evans SR: Clinical trial structures. J Exp Stroke Transl Med. 2010; 3(1): 8–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Blomqvist M, Ek U, Fernell E, et al.: Cognitive ability and dental fear and anxiety. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013; 121(2): 117–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Inal S, Kelleci M: Relief of pain during blood specimen collection in pediatric patients. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2012; 37(5): 339–345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Moadad N, Kozman K, Shahine R, et al.: Distraction Using the BUZZY for Children During an IV Insertion. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016; 31(1): 64–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Ananthu H: Master data for the control group and the test group.xlsx. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Ananthu H: Extended data. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Ananthu H: Reporting guidelines. figshare. [Reporting guidelines].2023. Publisher Full Text

Efficacy of an external cold and vibrating device in reducing discomfort during the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A split-mouth randomised crossover study

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study design

Study subjects

Sample size calculation

Randomisation

Interventions

Figure 1. External cold and vibrating device (Buzzy Mini with VibraCool Wings, MMJ labs, Atlanta, GA, USA).

Figure 2. IANB administration coupled with the Buzzy device.

Statistical analysis

Results

Comparison of pain response during administration of the IANB in the control group and test group (Table 1)

Table 1. Comparison of pain response between (i) Administration of IANB without Buzzy® (control group) and Administration of IANB with Buzzy® (test group) using Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Discussion

Conclusions

Future directions

Authors’ contributions

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Table 1. Comparison of pain response between (i) Administration of IANB without Buzzy^® (control group) and Administration of IANB with Buzzy^® (test group) using Wilcoxon signed rank test.