Skip to content

Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System in Pediatric Dental Anesthesia

Assessing the Efficacy of the Comfort-in Needle-Free Injection System for Managing Pain and Anxiety During Pediatric Dental Injections: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07585812
Enrollment
60
Registered
2026-05-14
Start date
2019-01-01
Completion date
2021-12-31
Last updated
2026-05-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dental Anxiety, Dental Pain, Local Anesthesia, Pulpotomy

Keywords

Comfort-in, Needle-free injection, Dental local anesthesia, Conventional dental injection, Injection pain

Brief summary

This randomized split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of the Comfort-in needle-free injection system compared with conventional dental injection for local anesthesia during pulpotomy treatment in children. Sixty children aged 5 to 8 years who required bilateral pulpotomy of primary first molars were included. Each participant received both anesthesia techniques in separate treatment sessions with an interval of at least one week. The order of anesthesia techniques was randomized: 30 children received conventional dental injection in the first session and Comfort-in needle-free injection in the second session, while the remaining 30 children received the interventions in the reverse order. Pain perception during anesthesia administration and pulpotomy was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale and the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Physiological parameters, including blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation, were recorded before anesthesia, after anesthesia, and after pulpotomy. The amount of anesthetic solution used, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and patient preference were also recorded. The study was designed to determine whether the Comfort-in needle-free injection system could provide effective local anesthesia for pediatric pulpotomy while reducing injection-related pain, physiological stress responses, anesthetic volume, duration of postoperative numbness, and postoperative complications compared with conventional dental injection.

Detailed description

Local anesthesia administration is one of the major sources of pain, fear, and anxiety in pediatric dental patients. Conventional dental injections may cause discomfort due to needle penetration, tissue pressure, and deposition of anesthetic solution. These experiences may negatively affect child cooperation and future dental attendance. Needle-free injection systems have been developed as an alternative method to deliver local anesthetic solution without needle penetration. This randomized split-mouth clinical trial compared the Comfort-in needle-free injection system with conventional dental injection in children requiring pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars. The split-mouth design was used to allow each child to serve as his or her own control, thereby reducing interindividual variability in pain perception and physiological responses. A total of 60 children aged 5 to 8 years were included. All participants required pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars located in either the maxilla or mandible. Eligible children had no previous experience with local anesthesia or dental treatment, had no systemic disease or mental disability, had not used medications that could affect pain perception, and demonstrated positive or definitely positive behavior according to the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale during the initial examination. Each child received both anesthesia techniques in two separate clinical sessions with a minimum interval of one week. In one session, conventional local anesthesia was administered using a dental injector after topical anesthetic application. In the other session, local anesthesia was administered using the Comfort-in needle-free injection system after topical anesthetic application. The sequence of interventions was randomized. Thirty children received conventional injection first and Comfort-in needle-free injection second; the remaining 30 children received Comfort-in needle-free injection first and conventional injection second. In the conventional injection session, the injection site was dried and topical anesthetic spray was applied for 60 seconds. Local anesthetic solution containing articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was then administered using a 27-gauge dental injector. In the Comfort-in session, the injection site was similarly dried and topical anesthetic spray was applied for 60 seconds. Articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using the Comfort-in needle-free injection system. Pain during anesthesia administration and pulpotomy was assessed using two validated pediatric pain assessment tools: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale and the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Physiological parameters, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation, were recorded before anesthesia, after anesthesia, and after pulpotomy. The total amount of anesthetic solution used, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and the child's preference for anesthesia technique were also recorded. The primary aim of the study was to compare pain perception during local anesthesia administration between the Comfort-in needle-free injection system and conventional dental injection. Secondary aims included comparing anesthetic efficacy during pulpotomy, physiological responses, amount of anesthetic solution required, duration of anesthetic effect, postoperative complications, and patient preference between the two anesthesia techniques.

Interventions

DEVICEComfort-in Needle-Free Injection System

The Comfort-in needle-free injection system was used to administer local anesthetic solution without needle penetration. After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using the Comfort-in system before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.

PROCEDUREConventional Dental Injection

Conventional local anesthesia was administered using a dental injector. After drying the injection site and applying topical anesthetic spray for 60 seconds, articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 was administered using a 27-gauge dental injector before pulpotomy treatment of the primary first molar.

Sponsors

Ondokuz Mayıs University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

This was a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Each participant received both anesthesia techniques in two separate treatment sessions with a minimum interval of one week. Participants were randomized to one of two intervention sequences: conventional dental injection followed by Comfort-in needle-free injection, or Comfort-in needle-free injection followed by conventional dental injection. Contralateral primary first molars requiring pulpotomy were treated in separate sessions.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 8 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Children aged 5 to 8 years. * Children requiring pulpotomy treatment of bilateral primary first molars located in either the maxilla or mandible. * Children with no previous experience of local anesthesia or dental treatment. * Children who showed positive or definitely positive behavior according to the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale during the initial examination. * Children with no systemic disease. * Children with no mental or cognitive disability. * Children who had not used medications that could affect pain perception, including antibiotics or analgesics. * Written informed consent obtained from the parents or legal guardians.

Exclusion criteria

* Previous dental treatment experience. * Previous local anesthesia experience. * Uncooperative behavior during the initial examination. * Presence of systemic disease. * Presence of mental or cognitive disability. * Antibiotic use within the last month. * Analgesic use within the last 24 hours. * Use of any medication that could influence pain perception. * Refusal of parental or legal guardian consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain during local anesthesia administration assessed by the FLACC scalePeriprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration; visits were separated by at least 1 week.Pain-related behavior during local anesthesia administration was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale. The FLACC scale evaluates five behavioral categories: face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability. The total score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain during local anesthesia and pulpotomy assessed by the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating ScaleImmediately after local anesthesia administration and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment sessionSelf-reported pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain. Pain scores were recorded after local anesthesia administration and after pulpotomy treatment for both anesthesia techniques.
Pain during pulpotomy procedure steps assessed by the FLACC scalePeriprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during prespecified pulpotomy procedure steps.Pain-related behavior during pulpotomy was assessed using the FLACC scale at different procedural steps, including high-speed instrumentation, low-speed instrumentation, pulp removal, matrix-wedge placement, and restoration. The total FLACC score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain.
Systolic blood pressureImmediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment sessionSystolic blood pressure was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
Diastolic blood pressureImmediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment sessionDiastolic blood pressure was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
Pulse rateImmediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment sessionPulse rate was recorded as a physiological parameter to evaluate the response to the anesthesia technique and dental treatment.
Oxygen saturationImmediately before anesthesia, immediately after anesthesia, and immediately after pulpotomy in each treatment sessionOxygen saturation was recorded as a physiological parameter during the dental treatment session.
Total amount of anesthetic solution usedPeriprocedural at Visit 1 and Visit 2, during local anesthesia administration.The total volume of local anesthetic solution used for each anesthesia technique was recorded in milliliters.
Duration of anesthetic effectImmediately after local anesthesia administration in each treatment sessionThe duration of anesthetic effect after local anesthesia administration was recorded in hours for each anesthesia technique.
Postoperative complications after local anesthesiaUp to 24 hours after Visit 1 and Visit 2Postoperative complications after local anesthesia were recorded for each anesthesia technique. Complications included lip biting, swelling, hematoma, and pain.
Number of Participants Preferring Each Anesthesia Technique Assessed by a Direct Preference QuestionAt completion of Visit 2After experiencing both anesthesia techniques, participants were asked which technique they preferred: conventional dental injection or Comfort-in needle-free injection. Data were reported as the number of participants preferring each anesthesia technique.

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORSema Aydinoglu, DDS, PhD

Recep Tayyip Erdogan University

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 15, 2026