18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Painless palatal local anesthetic injection: A low-cost, effective technique

      letter
      , 1
      Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
      Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sir, We read with interest the recently published original article by Gazal et al.[1] The authors observe that palatal injections are much more painful than buccal infiltrations. An existing method of overcoming discomfort is to anesthetize the keratinized, tightly-bound palatal mucosal epithelium with a topical anesthetic preparatory to the injection. While options ranging from 2% lignocaine gel, 5% ointment, to 10%–15% topical anesthetic sprays are available for topical use, the operator's limited ability to simultaneously reduce the rate of injection while maneuvering the needle has been cited as a cause for patient discomfort during palatal injections.[2 3 4] The use of computer-controlled injection devices to slow the rate of flow of local anesthetic solution into the tissues is effective in reducing pain on injection. The pump driven extremely slow rate of flow allows for a very comfortable injection experience. Cost of equipment would be a limiting factor in developing economies, especially in modestly equipped outreach centers and satellite clinics. Hence, an alternative is suggested to provide patients at these centers with a less painful injection experience. Conventionally, a disposable syringe with a volume of 2–2.5 mL is often used for injection following aspiration. We tried an insulin syringe instead. The narrow diameter of the insulin syringe implies a marked increase in piston travel to inject the same 1 mL of solution. This is since the volume of a cylinder (πr2 h) is proportional to the square of radius (r) and its height (h). Hence, to maintain volume constant, a small decrease in radius of a syringe must be compensated for by a large increase in its length. A law of hydraulics states that hydraulic piston travel speed (which is constant for the given operator pushing with his/her thumb) equals the ratio of flow rate to piston area. Since the insulin syringe has a narrow diameter and therefore a smaller piston cross-sectional area, flow rate of the local anesthetic solution also reduces for piston travel speed that is quite constant for a particular clinician. We used a narrow, commonly available 1 mL disposable insulin syringe for palatal injections and received favorable feedback from patients about the choice. Although the needle is a narrower gauge, positive aspiration can be demonstrated. Further, the narrow piston diameter reduces the amount of force needed to inject. This allows for more precise control by the operator with the obvious advantage of permitting extremely slow rates of initial injection.[5] This idea has also found favor with clinicians who find that the insulin injection for anterior palatal injections requires less manual effort. While not claiming that this technique is a substitute for a computer-controlled electronic injection device, our method permits almost painless injections, costs very little, is quick to set up, and is appreciated by patients who had palatal injections previously administered with a conventional larger syringe. We recommend this low-cost improvised injection technique in palatal injections to provide the benefit of painless injections at clinics not equipped with computer-controlled injection devices. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planing.

          The authors conducted a study to compare administration of local anesthetic using a computer-controlled delivery device with an aspirating syringe for therapeutic scaling and root planing. The anterior middle superior alveolar, or AMSA, injection was compared with other maxillary injections. Twenty healthy adults with moderate periodontal disease participated in this single-blind crossover study. Subjects were evaluated by a trained examiner and were treated by experienced dental hygienists. Subjects provided written and verbal pain ratings via a visual analog scale, or VAS, and a verbal rating scale, or VRS. AMSA injections were compared with syringe-delivered injections--greater palatine, or GP, and nasopalatine, or NP, blocks, and anterior superior alveolar and middle superior alveolar injections--in maxillary quadrants. Bleeding and changes in attachment were evaluated after one month. VAS and VRS scores for AMSA were significantly lower for computer-controlled delivery when compared with NP injections and combined maxillary injections (VAS scores) and with GP and combined maxillary injections (VRS scores). Mean injection times were similar for both groups. Mean gains in attachment were equal, 0.19 millimeters for quadrants anesthetized using computer-controlled injections and 0.22 mm for syringe injections. Subjects reported having less pain with GP and NP injections delivered using the computer-controlled device, and total injection time was similar to that required for syringe injections. Both techniques provided adequate anesthesia for therapeutic scaling and root planing. Clinical Implications. The two anesthetic delivery techniques were therapeutically equivalent for mandibular injections, and the AMSA injection has clinically significant advantages for maxillary injections.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions

            Objective: To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for upper teeth extractions. Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients were included in the articaine 4% group, and 45 in the mepivacaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Furthermore, the discomfort of the injections were recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with “no pain” (0 mm) and “unbearable pain” (100 mm). Results: There were significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated palatal mucosa and tooth of patients between mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltration (BI) groups P = 0.01 and 0.01. Patients in the articaine group recorded earlier palatal mucosa and teeth numbness than those in the mepivacaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, palatal injection was significantly more painful than BI (t-test: P < 0.001). Articaine buccal injection was significantly more painful than mepivacaine buccal injection (t-test: P <0.001). However, articaine palatal injection was less painful than articaine BI. Clinically, anesthesia onset time was faster in anterior upper teeth than upper middle and posterior teeth. Conclusions: BIs with 4% articaine was faster in achieving palate and teeth anesthesia than 2% mepivacaine for extraction of upper maxillary teeth. Patients in mepivacaine BI and articaine palatal injection groups reported less pain with needle injection. Failure of anesthesia was noticeable with maxillary multiple-rooted teeth.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Extraction of Maxillary Teeth Using Articaine Without a Palatal Injection: A Comparison Between the Anterior and Posterior Regions of the Maxilla

              The injection of a local anesthetic before tooth extraction is always associated with pain, and palatal anesthesia is the most painful type of injection for the patient. The specific aims of the study were to evaluate "pain control" using 4% articaine without palatal injection and to compare adequate anesthesia and pain control in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Saudi J Anaesth
                Saudi J Anaesth
                SJA
                Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                1658-354X
                0975-3125
                Jan-Mar 2018
                : 12
                : 1
                : 151-152
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Nakul Uppal, Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur - 492 099, Chhattisgarh, India. E-mail: drnakul@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                SJA-12-151
                10.4103/sja.SJA_220_17
                5789484
                442f33f6-d30b-4428-ab42-cb62d9f37653
                Copyright: © 2018 Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3%.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                Categories
                Letters to Editor

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article