Arapostathis Konstantinos Nikolaos, Dabarakis Nikolaos Nestoras, Coolidge Trilby, Tsirlis Anastasios, Kotsanos Nikolaos
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Anesth Prog. 2010 Spring;57(1):3-12. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3.
Needleless devices have been developed to provide anesthesia without injections. Little controlled research has examined the acceptability of needleless devices in pediatric patients. The aims of the study were to compare children's acceptance and preference for one type of needleless jet injection with classical local infiltration as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the needleless anesthesia. Eighty-seven nonfearful children with no previous experience of dental anesthesia were studied using a split-mouth design. The first dental procedure was performed with the classical infiltration anesthesia. The same amount of anesthetic was administered using the INJEX needleless device in a second session 1 week later, during which a second dental procedure was performed. Patients rated their acceptance and preference for the 2 methods, and the dentist recorded data about the need for additional anesthesia. More negative experiences were reported for the INJEX method. Most (73.6%) of the children preferred the traditional method. Among the 87 treatment procedures attempted following the use of INJEX, 80.5% required additional anesthesia, compared with 2.3% of those attempted following traditional infiltration. Traditional infiltration was more effective, acceptable, and preferred, compared with the needleless INJEX.
已开发出无需注射即可提供麻醉的无针设备。很少有对照研究考察无针设备在儿科患者中的可接受性。本研究的目的是比较儿童对一种无针喷射注射与传统局部浸润麻醉的接受度和偏好，并评估无针麻醉的效果。采用双侧对照设计对87名无牙科麻醉经验且不恐惧的儿童进行了研究。第一次牙科手术采用传统浸润麻醉。1周后，在第二次治疗中使用INJEX无针设备给予相同剂量的麻醉剂，期间进行第二次牙科手术。患者对这两种方法的接受度和偏好进行评分，牙医记录有关是否需要追加麻醉的数据。INJEX方法报告的负面体验更多。大多数（73.6%）儿童更喜欢传统方法。在使用INJEX后尝试的87次治疗过程中，80.5%需要追加麻醉，而传统浸润麻醉后尝试的治疗过程中这一比例为2.3%。与无针INJEX相比，传统浸润麻醉更有效、更易被接受且更受青睐。
