Comparisson of jet injection with local infiltration in pediatric dentistry

Objectives: Needless local anesthesia has been used in the past in dentistry to eliminate the fear of dental injection especially for children. The purpose of the present study was the clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the jet injection INJEX (Roesch) in local anesthesia in pediatric dentistry and the possible reactions of the young patients during the use of this new device. Methods: 87 patients participated in this study with a mean age of 8.37 years (6.42-10.83). 120 treatment procedures were performed in primary teeth (extractions, 1st and 2nd class restorations). All jet injections (INJ) were made according to the manufacturer’s directions. The local anesthetic that was injected was articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:200,000. 0.3 ml of anesthetic was discharged buccal to the apex and 0.1 ml lingual or palatal if it was indicated of the specific tooth. The same amount of anesthetic was administered in another session by local infiltration (INF) for the comparison of the 2 methods. Results: After the use of INJEX in all extraction cases, 43.8 % of 1st class and 88.1% of 2nd class restorations additional anesthesia with local infiltration was performed in order to complete the treatment. Patient’s annoyance during anesthesia: 70.1% (INJ)- 4.6% (INF), after anesthesia: 11.5% (INJ)- 4.6% (INF), patient’s fear during anesthesia: 81.6% (INJ)- 13.8% (INF), annoyance after recovery of anesthesia: 18.4% (INJ)- 9.2% (INF), future preference of technique: 12.6% (INJ)- 73.6% (INF) Conclusions: INJEX is a useful tool in some cases but it cannot substitute the use of local infiltration. The use of the device because of its shape is limited to the anterior teeth and especially buccally. Using the right behaviour management techniques, infiltration anesthesia was found to be superior to the INJEX.