IADR Abstract Archives

Needle-free Dental Anesthesia Technology: From Laboratory to Dental clinic

Objectives: Many patients experience pain and anxiety from conventional dental anesthesia with needles and thus may avoid necessary dental treatments. This problem could be solved by needle-free injections(NFI). The NFI system has been developed for more than 60 years, works by creating a micro-thin, high-speed liquid jet to penetrate the skin and disperse in the soft tissue. The NFI system has many advantages like eliminating needle phobia and injection pain, however, it is rarely used in the dental anesthesia field. The way of NFI system and needle work differently. Previous clinical trials showed the NFI system wasn’t capable of dental anesthesia because of poorly achieved anesthesia effects. Until now, there is no guideline for needle-free dental anesthesia.
The objective of this study is to develop an optimal guideline for needle-free dental anesthesia using a series of in-vitro and in situ experiments and validate the techniques by in vivo clinical trials.
Methods: Needle-free injection tests were first performed on phantom materials mimicking human tissue, to optimize injection effect. After which a series of cadaver experiments were executed to test whether the optimal needle-free anesthesia techniques work on body donors. Finally, a randomized split-mouth clinical trial is designed to test the clinical efficacy by comparing the needle-free anesthesia technique with needle anesthesia.
Results: The in vitro experiment shows that needle-free devices could provide sufficient injection depth of 1-3 cm. The injection is predictable based on injection setup. In situ experiment on cadaver shows that the mental, palatine, infraorbital and mandibular inferior alveolar nerve could be successfully blocked with the optimal techniques. Finally, the clinical trial confirmed the anesthesia efficacy and effect of NFI system are similar to needle injection.
Conclusions: This study sets the basis for how to use the needle-free device in the dental clinic in the future, to benefit both patients and clinicians.
Division: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting: 2020 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Washington, D.C., USA)
Location: Washington, D.C., USA
Year: 2020
Final Presentation ID: 1271
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Anesthesiology Research
Authors
  • Gao, Qiman  ( McGill University , Montreal , Quebec , Canada )
  • Noel, Geoffroy  ( McGill University , Montreal , Quebec , Canada )
  • Der Khatchadourian, Zovinar  ( McGill University , Montreal , Quebec , Canada )
  • Tamimi, Faleh  ( McGill University , Montreal , Quebec , Canada )
  • Taqi, Doaa  ( McGill University , Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevu , Quebec , Canada )
  • Menassa, Karim  ( Medical International Technologies Inc. , Montral , Quebec , Canada )
  • Mongeau, Luc  ( McGil University , Montreal , Quebec , Canada )
  • Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: NSERC
    Financial Interest Disclosure: Dr. Qiman Gao is founded by the Clifford Wong fellowship and Chinese Scholarship Council for her tuition and stipend.NSERC Engage Grants sponsored the laboratory part of this project.
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Newest Research in Sedation, Behaviour Management, Pain Control & Local Anesthesia
    TABLES
    Table 1: summary of systematic review.
    ReferenceDesignPatientsinterventionComparisonoutcomeInjection techniquesMain conclusion 
    (Dabarakis et al., 2007)Simple comparison32 dental patientsInjex+ 2% lidocaine with epinephrine on patients who has dental pulp anesthetized n=14Needle injection of + 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (n=14)Initial start and duration of anesthesiaNot mentioned1 efficacy is better for needle-free device with vasoconstriction agent
    2 no significant different compare to needle
     
    (Arapostathis et al., 2010)split-mouth design87 non-fearful children age 6-11.INJEX infiltration + 0.3ml of articaine 4% with epinephrine
    Needle Infiltration
    30 gauge + 0.3ml of articaine 4% with epinephrine
    1Acceptance
    2 Preference
    3 Efficacy
    Not mentioned1 More negative effect in INJEX group
    2 Most children prefer classic local infiltration (73.6%)
    3 INJEX group required more additional anesthesia than control group (80.5% vs. 2.3%)
     
    (Oliveira et al., 2019) RCT, split-mouth41 volunteers (class I restoration in maxillary first molar)Comfort-in system (Mika Medical; Busan, Korea)
    + 1ml Lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000
    Syringe + 30-gauge needle+ 1ml Lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 1 VAS of pain during injection
    2 PET (pulp electric test)
    3 latency time and duration
    Syringe 90 degrees to the maxillae1 no difference in pain vas
    2 no different in PET: anesthesia efficacy is the same
    3 needleless anesthesia last shorter than needle anesthesia. (20 vs. 40min)
     
    Search terms: “needle-free injection or jet injection” and “dental anesthesia” and “clinical trial,” between Jan1 1979 and Aug 1st, 2019, article in English; Conclusion: the study design and method are not clear enough. These studies all focus on infiltration, haven’t addressed the nerve block.
    IMAGES

    Preview