S2EP15: Computerized Systems vs. Traditional Anesthesia in Dental Procedures
Administering anesthesia prior to a dental procedure is bound to cause patients some pain and anxiety.
But does the delivery system make a difference?
Do patients experience more or less discomfort when the practitioner uses a computer-assisted device as opposed to traditional anesthesia?
On this episode of Dentist Brian Candy, I walk you through a recent study published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery comparing computerized delivery systems with conventional local anesthesia.
I share the study’s findings that less pain and anxiety is associated with computerized techniques but raise questions about the statistical significance of pain score differences between the two methods.
Listen in to understand how the location and speed of injection impact pain scores and find out why I’m not investing in a computer-assisted anesthetic delivery system anytime soon.
How a recent study in JOMS compared computerized delivery systems with traditional local anesthesia
The study’s finding that less pain and anxiety was associated with computerized techniques
Why the authors urge caution in interpreting the results of this study
How the location of a local anesthetic impacts the amount of pain a patient feels
How the speed of injection differs between computer-assisted devices vs. conventional injections (and how that might affect pain scores)
How long I typically take to administer a local anesthetic
The study’s conclusion that conventional anesthesia is widely used, safe and effective
Why the authors of the study do not recommend the purchase of computerized anesthesia devices based on their meta-analysis
Why I question the statistical significance of pain score differences between conventional and computer-assisted anesthesia
Connect with Dr. Bryan McLelland
Call (509) 922-2273
‘Do Computerized Delivery Systems Promote Less Pain and Anxiety Compared to Traditional Local Anesthetic and Dental Procedures? A Systematic Review of the Literature’ in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery