Comparison of computer-controlled intraosseous anaesthesia and conventional anaesthesia in paediatric dentistry: a split-mouth randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, patient-reported acceptance, and preference of Computer-Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia (CCIA) and Conventional Local Anaesthesia (CLA) in paediatric dentistry. METHODS: Healthy children aged 5-9 years who required similar treatment on both sides of either jaw were recruited from a university clinic. In a split-mouth randomised design, children received CCIA and CLA on contralateral sides one week apart, with side and sequence randomly allocated. Both procedures and data collection were performed by a single experienced paediatric dentist, and patient acceptance and preference were assessed using structured questions. Data were analysed with linear/logistic regressions adjusting for within-patient clustering (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: 64 children (mean age 7.0 years; 44% boys) were included. No significant differences in CCIA or CLA clinical efficacy were seen (P = 0.59). Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia was associated with significantly less discomfort at needle insertion (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.32; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.16, 0.62), during injection (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.31), and overall during application (OR = 0,14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.31), as well as with lower fear levels (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.22, 0.84) compared to CLA (P < 0.05 in all instances). Although CCIA required longer administration, it produced shorter soft-tissue numbness and less self-inflicted trauma, and was more often associated with unpleasant taste, unusual tooth sensation, and post-injection bruising; nevertheless, CCIA was preferred by more children (78%) than CLA (22%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in clinical efficacy between CCIA/CLA was seen; CCIA was associated with reduced procedural pain and fear compared to CLA, resulted in shorter soft tissue numbness, less self-inflicted trauma and was preferred by most children despite longer administration time and more transient local adverse sensations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
Published
2026-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-026-01237-4
Primary Topic
Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of computer-controlled intraosseous anaesthesia and conventional anaesthesia in paediatric dentistry: a split-mouth randomised clinical trial

K. N. Arapostathis, A. Arhakis, N. Dabarakis, A. Dermata et al.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
article

Comparison of computer-controlled intraosseous anaesthesia and conventional anaesthesia in paediatric dentistry: a split-mouth randomised clinical trial

K. N. Arapostathis, A. Arhakis, N. Dabarakis, A. Dermata, S. N. Papageorgiou
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, patient-reported acceptance, and preference of Computer-Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia (CCIA) and Conventional Local Anaesthesia (CLA) in paediatric dentistry. METHODS: Healthy children aged 5-9 years who required similar treatment on both sides of either jaw were recruited from a university clinic. In a split-mouth randomised design, children received CCIA and CLA on contralateral sides one week apart, with side and sequence randomly allocated. Both procedures and data collection were performed by a single experienced paediatric dentist, and patient acceptance and preference were assessed using structured questions. Data were analysed with linear/logistic regressions adjusting for within-patient clustering (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: 64 children (mean age 7.0 years; 44% boys) were included. No significant differences in CCIA or CLA clinical efficacy were seen (P = 0.59). Controlled Intraosseous Anaesthesia was associated with significantly less discomfort at needle insertion (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.32; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.16, 0.62), during injection (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.31), and overall during application (OR = 0,14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.31), as well as with lower fear levels (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.22, 0.84) compared to CLA (P < 0.05 in all instances). Although CCIA required longer administration, it produced shorter soft-tissue numbness and less self-inflicted trauma, and was more often associated with unpleasant taste, unusual tooth sensation, and post-injection bruising; nevertheless, CCIA was preferred by more children (78%) than CLA (22%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in clinical efficacy between CCIA/CLA was seen; CCIA was associated with reduced procedural pain and fear compared to CLA, resulted in shorter soft tissue numbness, less self-inflicted trauma and was preferred by most children despite longer administration time and more transient local adverse sensations.

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
University of Zurich (CH), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.