Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of needle free anesthesia conventional anesthesia in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis a randomised clinical trial

Abstract

Abstract newlineBackground: newlinePain is the primary reason for which most of the patients seek endodontic newlinetreatment. Hence, it is important for a clinician to ensure a painless treatment newlineto make the patient comfortable. Local anesthesia is considered to be the newlinemost important step in the procedure to reduce the pain. However, majority of newlinethe patients do not cooperate due to the fear of syringe anesthesia. newlineTherefore, a concept of Needleless anesthesia has been introduced. newlineAim: newlineTo compare anesthetic efficacy of needle free anesthesia and conventional newlineanesthesia in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. newlineMaterials and Methods: newlineTotal of 54 patients were included in the study. Treatment was carried out by newlinea single operator. First vitality was assessed using cold test, heat test and newlineelectric pulp testing, Pre operative pain was assessed using VAS scale before newlineadministration of anesthesia. Local anesthesia was administered according to newlinethe group assigned. Pain was assessed during administration of anesthesia newlineusing VAS scale. After administration of anesthesia vitality of the tooth was newlineassessed using cold test,heat test and electric pulp testing. The tooth was newlineisolated using a rubber dam and the access cavity was prepared using Endo newlineaccess bur size 2 (Dentsply) and sterile carbide burs. Pain was assessed newlineduring access cavity preparation, during first file insertion using VAS scale. newlineWorking length was determined using an apex locator (Root ZX Mini, J newlineMorita) and was confirmed using intra oral periapical radiographs. Later on newlinefurther treatment was carried out. newlineResults: newlineA total of 54 participants were included in this clinical trial. data analysis was newlinedone with the 54 teeth. There is no significant difference in mean age newlinedistribution between two groups(p=0.852). Considering the frequency newlinedistribution of gender there is no significant difference however group 1 had newlinemore female participants (59.3) compared to group 2 (33.3). There is newlinesignificant reduction in the mean pain score in group 2 compared to group 1 newline