Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The feasibility of needleless jet injection versus conventional needle local anesthesia during dental procedures: a systematic review

  • Alreem Ahmed, Alameeri (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Hessa AlFandi, AlShamsi (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Amel, Murad (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Mariam Mahmoud, Alhammadi (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Meznah Hamad, Alketbi (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Arwa, AlHamwi (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Natheer Hashim Al, Rawi (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Sausan Al, Kawas (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Marwan Mansoor, Mohammed (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Shishir Ram, Shetty (Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah)
  • Received : 2022.06.15
  • Accepted : 2022.08.08
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates current evidence regarding the feasibility of using needleless jet injection instead of a conventional local anesthetic needle. EBSCO, ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus databases were used to identify relevant literature published in English from 2005 to 2020. Ten studies were selected. Five of them were randomized clinical trials, 3 case-control studies, and 2 equivalence trials. Using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist, 6 studies scored between 67% and 100%, and 4 studies scored between 34% and 66%. According to Jadad's scale, 2 studies were considered strong, and 8 studies were considered moderate in quality. The results of the 10 studies showed differences in patient preference for needleless jet injection. Needleless injection technique has been found to be particularly useful in uncooperative patients with anxiety and needle phobia. Needleless jet injection is not technique sensitive. However, with needleless jet anesthesia, most treatments require additional anesthesia. Conventional needle anesthesia is less costly, has a longer duration of action, and has better pain control during dental extraction. Needleless jet anesthesia has been shown to be moderately accepted by patients with a fear of needles, has a faster onset of action, and is an efficient alternative to conventional infiltration anesthesia technique.

Keywords

References

  1. Angelo Z, Polyvios C. Alternative practices of achieving anaesthesia for dental procedures: a review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018;18:79-88. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.2.79
  2. Hussain NUS, Younus S, Akhtar UB, Sajjad MAH, Chishty MS, Iqbal S. Comparison of pain perceived by patients undergoing intra oral local anesthesia using different needle gauges. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2020;70:1702-6. https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v70i6.4286
  3. Gupta R, Kaur S, Dahiya P, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of EMLA and needleless jet anesthesia in non-surgical periodontal therapy. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2018;8:118-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.04.001
  4. Makade CS, Shenoi PR, Gunwal MK. Comparison of acceptance, preference and efficacy between pressure anesthesia and classical needle infiltration anesthesia for dental restorative procedures in adult patients. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:169-74. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.128063
  5. Dabarakis NN, Alexander V, Tsirlis AT, Parissis NA, Nikolaos M. Needle-less local anesthesia: clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of the jet anesthesia Injex in local anesthesia in dentistry. Quintessence Int 2007;38:E572-6.
  6. Bose S, Garg N, Pathivada L, Yeluri R. Cooling the soft tissue and its effect on perception of pain during infiltration and block anesthesia in children undergoing dental procedures: a comparative study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2019;13:159-65. https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2019.025
  7. de Oliveira ACA, Amorim KS, Nascimento Junior EMD, Duarte ACB, Groppo FC, Takeshita WM, et al. Assessment of anesthetic properties and pain during needleless jet injection anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180195. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0195
  8. Arapostathis KN, Dabarakis NN, Coolidge T, Tsirlis A, Kotsanos N. Comparison of acceptance, preference, and efficacy between jet injection INJEX and local infiltration anesthesia in 6 to 11 year old dental patients. Anesth Prog 2010;57:3-12. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-57.1.3
  9. Kumar S. Newer delivery systems for local anesthesia in dentistry. J Pharm Sci Res 2015;7:252-5.
  10. Ocak H, Akkoyun EF, Colpak HA, Demetoglu U, Yucesoy T, Kilic E, et al. Is the jet injection effective for teeth extraction? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;121:19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.05.001
  11. Szmuk P, Szmuk E, Ezri T. Use of needle-free injection systems to alleviate needle phobia and pain at injection. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005;5:467-77. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.5.4.467
  12. de Souza Amorim K, Franz-Montan M, Groppo FC, Muniz BV, de Araujo JSM, Santana JVF, et al. Palatal needle-free anesthesia for upper molars extraction. A randomized clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2020;48:815-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.05.001
  13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  14. Baxter J, Mitragotri S. Needle-free liquid jet injections: mechanisms and applications. Expert Rev Med Devices 2006;3:565-74. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.3.5.565
  15. do Couto RO, Cubayachi C, Calefi PL, Lopez RFV, Pedrazzi V, De Gaitani CM, et al. Combining amino amide salts in mucoadhesive films enhances needle-free buccal anesthesia in adults. J Control Release 2017;266:205-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.09.039
  16. Ghavimi MA, Kananizadeh Y, Hajizadeh S, Ghoreishizadeh A. Overview of local anesthesia techniques. In: Motamedi MHK, ed. A textbook of advanced oral and maxillofacial surgery. London: IntechOpen; 2015.
  17. Mohizin A, Kim JK. Current engineering and clinical aspects of needle-free injectors: a review. J Mech Sci Technol 2018;32:5737-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-1121-9
  18. Padmanabhan AK, Mathew SM, Nath AS, Das LK, Nebu AA. Dental anesthesia: can needle-free injections help? J Anaesth Surg Res 2020;1:1-4. https://doi.org/10.37191/Mapsci-JASR-1(1)-005
  19. Thiem DGE, Schnaith F, Van Aken CME, Kontges A, Kumar VV, Al-Nawas B, et al. Extraction of mandibular premolars and molars: comparison between local infiltration via pressure syringe and inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1523-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2251-7
  20. Reed KL, Malamed SF, Fonner AM. Local anesthesia part 2: technical considerations. Anesth Prog 2012;59:127-36; quiz 137. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-59.3.127