TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-10-454 1553506635 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 08 31 2016 10 1 Gowri Sivaramakrishnan Kannan Sridharan Background: Local anaesthetics play a key role in reducing pain and anxiety during dental treatment. However the disadvantage of using syringe and needle technique in the maxilla, proximal to the apices of the teeth is that it is painful and also leads to collateral anaesthesia. Hence this systematic review aims to identify whether computer assisted local anaesthetic delivery system could produce predictable results similar to conventional syringe needle technique and also eliminate the disadvantages. Method: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. A pre-tested data extraction form was created and following data were extracted from each eligible study: trial site, year, trial methods, participants, interventions and outcomes. A significant heterogeneity was seen in between the eligible studies. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present review. One was cross-over and one split mouth, while others were parallel. Only one was open label and the rest were single blinded. Three studies were conducted in children while the rest in adults. The outcome measurement was directed to measure psychological attributes using visual analog scale, electric pulp testing and pain behaviour code. Conclusion: Unfortunately because of the clinical heterogeneity, meta-analysis could not be performed. Hence it is difficult to conclude that the computer assisted delivery is better than the conventional method, although it was found to perform better. Many high quality studies assessing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of various modes of administration are required to confirm the utility of computer assisted delivery systems. 08 31 2016 454 459 TODENTJ-10-454 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2016-01-05 2016-7-20 2016-07-23 2016-08-31 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 10.2174/1874210601610010454 1553506635 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/10/PAGE/454/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V10/TODENTJ-10-454/TODENTJ-10-454.xml Anesth. Prog. Bahl R. 51 138 2004 Bahl R. Local anesthesia in dentistry. Anesth Prog 2004; 51 (4) : 138-42. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. Haas D.A. 68 546 2002 Haas DA. An update on local anesthetics in dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68 (9) : 546-51. Yagiela JA. Local anesthetics. In: Dionne RA, Phero JC, Becker DE, Eds. Pain and anxiety control in dentistry. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders 2002; pp. 78-96. Haas DA. Drugs in dentistry. In: Compendium of pharmaceuticals and specialties (CPS). 37th ed. Canada: Canadian Pharmaceutical Association 2002; pp. L26-9. United States Pharmacopeial Drug Information Index. Greenwood Village. 22nd ed. Colorado: Micromedex 2002. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. Yagiela J.A. 130 701 1999 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0280 Yagiela JA. Adverse drug interactions in dental practice: interactions associated with vasoconstrictors. Part V of a series. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130 (5) : 701-9. Quintessence Int. Friedman M.J. 29 297 1998 Friedman MJ, Hochman MN. The AMSA injection: a new concept for local anesthesia of maxillary teeth using a computer-controlled injection system. Quintessence Int 1998; 29 (5) : 297-303. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. Ran D. 27 247 2003 Ran D, Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiving periodontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (Wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003; 27 (3) : 247-50. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. Berlin J. 99 361 2005 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.11.009 Berlin J, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99 (3) : 361-6. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version. 5.1.0, 2015 Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org [Accessed on 15 Oct 2015]. J. Clin. Epidemiol. Moher D. 62 1006 2009 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) : 1006-12. J. Dent. Child. (Chic.) Klein U. 72 119 2005 Klein U, Hunzeker C, Hutfless S, Galloway A. Quality of anesthesia for the maxillary primary anterior segment in pediatric patients: comparison of the P-ASA nerve block using CompuMed delivery system vs traditional supraperiosteal injections. J Dent Child (Chic) 2005; 72 (3) : 119-25. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. Loomer P.M. 135 358 2004 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0188 Loomer PM, Perry DA. Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planing. J Am Dent Assoc 2004; 135 (3) : 358-65. J. Appl. Oral Sci. Yenisey M. 17 414 2009 10.1590/S1678-77572009000500012 Yenisey M. Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17 (5) : 414-20. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. Tahmassebi J.F. 10 77 2009 10.1007/BF03321604 Tahmassebi JF, Nikolaou M, Duggal MS. A comparison of pain and anxiety associated with the administration of maxillary local analgesia with Wand and conventional technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009; 10 (2) : 77-82. Br. Dent. J. Kandiah P. 213 E15 2012 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.988 Kandiah P, Tahmassebi JF. Comparing the onset of maxillary infiltration local anaesthesia and pain experience using the conventional technique vs. the Wand in children. Br Dent J 2012; 213 (9) : E15. Pediatr. Dent. Allen K.D. 24 315 2002 Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24 (4) : 315-20. Gen. Dent. Flanagan T. 55 216 2007 Flanagan T, Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Wahl JA. Size doesn’t matter: needle gauge and injection pain. Gen Dent 2007; 55 (3) : 216-7. Dent. Today de St Georges J. 23 96 2004 de St Georges J. How dentists are judged by patients. Dent Today 2004; 23 (8) : 96-99, 98-99. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Computer-Controlled Local Anesthesia Delivery (C-CLAD) System meeting. Introductory remarks. New Orleans La 2008. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. McArdle B.F. 128 647 1997 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0265 McArdle BF. Painless palatal anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128 (5) : 647.