Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Advanced bibliometric analysis of computer-controlled local anesthesia research in pediatric dentistry incorporating productivity laws and network analysis

  • Erdal Cem Kargu (Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli Health and Technology University) ;
  • Hulya Cerci Akcay (Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli Health and Technology University)
  • Received : 2026.02.11
  • Accepted : 2026.03.13
  • Published : 2026.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of the research on computer-controlled local anesthesia in pediatric dentistry by analyzing publication trends, citation patterns, collaborative structures, and thematic evolution within the field. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed from 2000 to 2024. After excluding duplicates, 80 eligible documents were included. Descriptive indicators, such as annual scientific production, citation performance, authorship patterns, and core sources, were analyzed using the Bibliometrix package (Biblioshiny). Keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship network visualizations were generated using VOSviewer to explore thematic structures and collaboration patterns. Results: The findings revealed a gradual increase in scientific output over time, with a marked rise after 2014 and a peak in publication activity from 2018 to 2024. A limited number of core journals accounted for a substantial proportion of the publications, consistent with Bradford's law. Author productivity followed Lotka's law, with most authors contributing to a single publication. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified major thematic clusters centered on local anesthesia, pain management, anxiety, pediatric dental procedures, and behavioral considerations. Co-authorship analysis demonstrated that research collaboration was concentrated within a small number of author groups. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis demonstrates the increasing scientific interest in computer-controlled local anesthesia in pediatric dentistry and identifies the field's core journals, key research themes, and collaborative structures. These findings provide a concise reference framework for future clinical and research-oriented studies on pediatric dental anesthesia.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Part of this study was presented as an oral presentation at the 31st International Congress of the Turkish Society of Pediatric Dentistry, held on October 4-7, 2025, in Antalya, Turkiye.

References

  1. Garret-Bernardin A, Cantile T, D'Antò V, Galanakis A, Giannatempo G, Ferrazzano GF, et al. Pain experience and behavior management in pediatric dentistry: a comparison between traditional local anesthesia and the Wand computerized delivery system. Pain Res Manag 2017; 2017: 7941238. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7941238
  2. Mittal M, Chopra R, Kumar A, Srivastava D. Comparison of pain perception using conventional versus computer-controlled intraligamentary local anesthetic injection for extraction of primary molars. Anesth Prog 2019; 66: 69-76. https://doi.org/10.2344/anpr-66-01-09
  3. Feda M, Amoudi NA, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Children's pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010; 34: 217-22. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.34.3.3201l74255560520
  4. Shetty S, Dalvi S, Katge F, Chimata VK, Gidwani RM, Gada MK, et al. Comparison of pain perception between computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery and the conventional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block in children. Dent Med Probl 2022; 59: 523-9. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/135897
  5. Amoudi NA, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Anesthetic effectiveness of anterior and middle superior alveolar injections using a computerized device versus traditional technique in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008; 33: 97-102. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.33.2.d666m2l43334274p
  6. Baghlaf K, AlAmoudi N, ElKarmi A, Farsi N, Abdullah A, Al-Zahrani S, et al. Pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 799-806.
  7. Chedid JCA, Salameh M, Hindy CE, Chedid N, Khoury G. Comparative study of two different computer-controlled local anesthesia injection systems in children: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2023; 24: 417-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-023-00793-3
  8. Vitale MC, Gallo S, Pascadopoli M, Fontana M, Scribante A. Local anesthesia with SleeperOne S4 computerized device versus traditional syringe and perceived pain in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 47: 82-90.
  9. Libonati A, Nardi R, Gallusi G, Angotti V, Toccaceli A, Di Taranto V, et al. Pain and anxiety associated with computer-controlled local anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-over studies. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2018; 19: 324-32.
  10. Ninawe N, Anija CK. Effectiveness of benzocaine gel and ice for pain management during CCLAD injection in children: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025; 18: 19-23.
  11. Elshiekh M, Ragab R. Clinical effectiveness of Egyptian versus imported articaine in extraction of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial. Adv Dent J 2022; 4: 228-37. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjc.2022.131658.1143
  12. AlRaddadi ZA, AlHowaish LA, Sulimany AM. Effectiveness of intraosseous local anesthesia (QuickSleeper 5) during pulpotomy and stainless steel crown placement on mandibular primary molars. Children 2025; 12: 294.
  13. De Camargo Smolarek P, Da Silva LS, Martins PRD, Chibinski AC. Influence of distinct local dental anesthesia techniques on pain and anxiety in children aged 9-12 years. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25: 3831-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03713-7
  14. Helmy RH, Zeitoun SI, El-Habashy LM. Computer-controlled intraligamentary local anaesthesia for extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health 2022; 22: 194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02194-2
  15. Zupic I, Čater T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods 2014; 18: 429-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
  16. Keskin İS, Karabay F. Top-cited articles on vital pulp therapy for irreversible pulpitis in permanent teeth: a bibliometric analysis. Odontology 2026; 114: 1-15.
  17. Khalil FMMM, Gawad RYA, Sabry SM. Effect of Buzzy system versus topical anaesthesia on pain reduction during infiltration anaesthesia in children. Adv Dent J 2025; 7: 702-13. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjc.2024.326963.1653
  18. Hambouta HM, Sharaf DA, Wahba NA. Effectiveness of cold vibratory stimuli on pain perception during infiltration anesthesia in children. BMC Oral Health 2025; 25: 900. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06170-4
  19. Chengappa MD, Prashanth A. Efficacy of computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system versus traditional injection in pediatric surgical procedures. Med J Armed Forces India 2020; 78(Suppl 1): S89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.010
  20. Atesci AA, Isik BK, Yılmaz DO, Canatan S, Alay S, Dogan M, et al. Is digital anesthesia a viable alternative for pain and anxiety control in pediatric dentistry? Int J Paediatr Dent 2025; 35: 144-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.70048
  21. John J, Kumar TY, Asokan S, GeethaPriya PR. Behavioral response and pain perception to computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33: 223-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.160394
  22. Wan K, Jing Q, Sun Q, Gong Q, Jiang H, Su J, et al. Application of a peripheral nerve block technique in laser treatment of the entire facial skin and evaluation of its analgesic effect. Eur J Dermatol 2013; 23: 324-30. https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2013.2012
  23. Thoppe-Dhamodhara Y, Asokan S, John B, GeethaPriya PR. Cartridge syringe versus computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system: pain-related behaviour over two sequential visits. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: e513-8. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52542
  24. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand versus traditional injection: a comparison of pain-related behaviors. Pediatr Dent 2001; 22: 458-62.
  25. Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2000; 21: 421-4.
  26. Ludovichetti FS, Zuccon A, Zambon G, Zerman N, Mazzoleni S. Pain perception in paediatric patients: evaluation of computerized anesthesia delivery system versus conventional infiltration anesthesia. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2022; 23: 153-6.
  27. Versloot J, Veerkamp JSJ, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during dental visits: computerized anesthesia delivery system versus traditional syringe. Br Dent J 2008; 205: E2. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.414
  28. Shirani M, Looha MA, Emami M. Injection pain using computer-controlled versus conventional local anesthetic delivery systems in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2025; 157: 105770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105770