Efficacy of Light-Cured Anesthetic Versus a Marketed For Preventive Treatment

Objectives: Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of pain reduction using a new light-cured anesthetic gel compared a marketed anesthetic during rubber dam isolation for sealants in children.
Methods: Methods: Thirty children in need of sealant placement on the first permanent mandibular molars were selected to took part in this randomized, split-mouth, triple-blinded study. Before rubber dam placement, the light-cured anesthetic gel (test) or a marketed gel (control- Emla cream) was applied on the gingival margins of the molars. The hemi-arches were isolated with cotton rolls and the gels were applied; the anesthetics gels were light-cured for 40 seconds. After 30 seconds, clamp #14A was positioned on tooth 36 or 46. If there was pain, the clamp was removed and rescue anesthesia was applied. The absolute risk and intensity of pain were registered using three scales: facial expression (Wong-Baker), observational (Flacc) and numerical (NRS). Data were analyzed by McNemar’s test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank (alpha = 5%).
Results: Results: No differences were detected for the risk of pain between groups (P= 0.89), no patient requested rescue anesthesia. The intensity of pain was statistically different under the two pain scales (Wong-Baker, p = 0.002 and numerical p = 0.031). For Flacc's scale, the groups did not present significant difference (p = 0.195).
Conclusions: Conclusion: The new light-cured anesthetic gel was superior to the Emla cream anesthetic for pain intensity during clamp adaptation for rubber dam isolation. Its use helps to overcome the fear of needles, which can trigger pain, anxiety and discomfort for the majority of the patients, hampering the behavior management in children.