Bollepalli Bhavana, Penmetsa Ahalya, Peddi Ravigna, Mannam Himavarsha, Koruprolu Ramalaxmi, Penmetsa Gautami S
Department of Pedodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2025 Apr 1;43(2):269-275. doi: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_154_25. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
Local anesthesia administration is associated with pain, resulting in dental anxiety in children. Various techniques have been tried to minimize this discomfort such as topical anesthetic gel, spray, Vibration of tissue, and distraction techniques. Literature has shown lesser evidence for photobiomodulation (PBM) in pain reduction for pediatric patients.
To compare the efficacy of PBM 810 nm versus topical local anesthetic spray in reducing injection pain in children of age 6-12 years.
Fifty-four children aged 6-12 years who visited the outpatient department, department of pediatric and preventive dentistry, requiring local anesthetic administration during invasive procedures were randomly allocated into three groups, namely Group 1 - topical spray (lignocaine hydrochloride 2%), Group 2 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 40 s), and Group 3 - PBM (810 nm, 0.6 W, 3 min). Pain was assessed subjectively and objectively using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS) and Sound-Eye-Motor (SEM) Scale, respectively. Objective and subjective pain scores were evaluated using One way ANOVA and jaw wise comparison of PBM efficacy done using independent t-test.
The mean WBS scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were 3.8 ± 2.21, 1.77 ± 2.81, and 4.11 ± 3.1, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.025) between Group 1 (control) and Group 2 (PBM 40 s). However, no significant difference was found in considering SEM scores. Irrespective of bone topography, PBM was effective in reduction of injection pain, though it was not significant during local infiltration.
PBM with 810 nm laser, 0.6 W for 40 s is more effective in reducing the injection pain compared to topical anesthetic spray and PBM for 3 min.
局部麻醉给药会引起疼痛,导致儿童牙科焦虑。人们尝试了各种技术来尽量减少这种不适,如局部麻醉凝胶、喷雾、组织振动和分散注意力技术。文献表明,光生物调节(PBM)在减轻儿科患者疼痛方面的证据较少。
比较810 nm光生物调节与局部麻醉喷雾在减轻6至12岁儿童注射疼痛方面的疗效。
54名6至12岁到儿科及预防牙科门诊就诊、在侵入性操作期间需要局部麻醉的儿童被随机分为三组,即第1组——局部喷雾(2%盐酸利多卡因),第2组——PBM(810 nm,0.6 W,40秒),第3组——PBM(810 nm,0.6 W,3分钟)。分别使用面部表情疼痛评分量表(WBS)和听视动(SEM)量表对疼痛进行主观和客观评估。使用单因素方差分析评估客观和主观疼痛评分,并使用独立t检验对PBM疗效进行按颌比较。
第1组、第2组和第3组的平均WBS评分分别为3.8±2.21、1.77±2.81和4.11±3.1,第1组(对照组)和第2组(PBM 40秒)之间的差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.025)。然而,在考虑SEM评分时未发现显著差异。无论骨形态如何,PBM在减轻注射疼痛方面是有效的,尽管在局部浸润时不显著。
与局部麻醉喷雾和3分钟的PBM相比,810 nm激光、0.6 W、持续40秒的PBM在减轻注射疼痛方面更有效。