Premium
Does computerized anaesthesia reduce pain during local anaesthesia in paediatric patients for dental treatment? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Smolarek Priscila de Camargo,
Wambier Letícia M.,
Siqueira Silva Leonardo,
Chibinski Ana Cláudia Rodrigues
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of paediatric dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.183
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1365-263X
pISSN - 0960-7439
DOI - 10.1111/ipd.12580
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , general anaesthesia , anesthesia , pain perception , randomized controlled trial , subgroup analysis , medline , physical therapy , surgery , political science , law
This systematic review and meta‐analysis analysed whether pain and disruptive behaviour can be decreased by the use of computerized local dental anaesthesia (CDLA) in children. The literature was screened to select randomized clinical trials that compared computerized and conventional anaesthesia. The primary outcome was pain perception during anaesthesia; the secondary, disruptive behaviour. The risk of bias of individual papers and the quality of the evidence were evaluated. After search, 8389 records were found and 20 studies remained for the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. High heterogeneity was detected for both outcomes. For the pain perception, the overall analysis showed a standard mean difference of −0.78 (−1.31, −0.25) favouring CDLA; however, when only studies at low risk of bias were analysed (subgroup analysis), there was no difference between the two techniques [−0.12(−0.46, 0.22)]. For disruptive behaviour, no differences were detected for continuous [−0.26 (−0.68, 0.16)] or dichotomous data [0.81 (0.62, 1.06)]. The quality of evidence was judged as low for pain perception and very low for disruptive behaviour. It is concluded that there is no difference in the pain perception and disruptive behaviour in children subjected to computerized or conventional dental local anaesthesia. Notwithstanding, the quality of the available evidence is low.