Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2015; 09(04): 470-475
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.172637
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effectiveness of audiovisual distraction eyewear and computerized delivery of anesthesia during pulp therapy of primary molars in phobic child patients

Kausar Sadia Fakhruddin
1   College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
,
El Batawi Hisham
1   College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
,
Mehmet Omer Gorduysus
1   College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
2   Department of Endodontics, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of audiovisual distraction technique with video eyewear and computerized delivery system-intrasulcular (CDS-IS) during the application of local anesthetic in phobic pediatric patients undergoing pulp therapy of primary molars. Materials and Methods: This randomized, crossover clinical study includes 60 children, aged between 4 and 7-year-old (31 boys and 29 girls). Children were randomly distributed equally into two groups as A and B. This study involved two treatment sessions of pulp therapy, 1-week apart. During treatment session I, group A had an audiovisual distraction with video eyewear, whereas group B had audiovisual distraction using projector display only without video eyewear. During treatment session II, group A had undergone pulp therapy without video eyewear distraction, whereas group B had the pulp treatment using video eyewear distraction. Each session involved the pulp therapy of equivalent teeth in the opposite sides of the mouth. At each visit scores on the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) (f) were used to evaluate the level of anxiety before treatment. After the procedure, children were instructed to rate their pain during treatment on the Wong Bakers’ faces pain scale. Changes in pulse oximeter and heart rate were recorded in every 10 min. Results: From preoperative treatment session I (with video eyewear) to preoperative treatment session II (without video eyewear) for the MCDAS (f), a significant (P > 0.03) change in the mean anxiety score was observed for group A. Self-reported mean pain score decreases dramatically after treatment sessions’ with video eyewear for both groups. Conclusion: The use of audiovisual distraction with video eyewear and the use of CDS-IS system for anesthetic delivery was demonstrated to be effective in improving children's cooperation, than routine psychological interventions and is, therefore, highly recommended as an effective behavior management technique for long invasive procedures of pulp therapy in young children.

Key words:

Audiovisual distraction eyewear - dental anxiety - pulp therapy
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Arntz A, van Eck M, Heijmans M. Predictions of dental pain: The fear of any expected evil, is worse than the evil itself. Behav Res Ther 1990; 28: 29-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ince B, Ercan E, Dalli M, Dulgergil CT, Zorba YO, Colak H. Incidence of postoperative pain after single- and multi-visit endodontic treatment in teeth with vital and non-vital pulp. Eur J Dent 2009; 3: 273-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, McTigue DJ, Fields Jr HW, Nowak AJ. Infancy Through Adolescence, Pediatric Dentistry. 4th ed.. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Saunders; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Allen KD, Stanley RT, McPherson K. Evaluation of behavior management technology dissemination in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 1990; 12: 79-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mahesh R, Prasad V, Menon PA. A case of accidental aspiration of an endodontic instrument by a child treated under conscious sedation. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 225-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Prabhakar AR, Marwah N, Raju OS. A comparison between audio and audiovisual distraction techniques in managing anxious pediatric dental patients. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007; 25: 177-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wismeijer AA, Vingerhoets AJ. The use of virtual reality and audiovisual eyeglass systems as adjunct analgesic techniques: A review of the literature. Ann Behav Med 2005; 30: 268-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sinha M, Christopher NC, Fenn R, Reeves L. Evaluation of nonpharmacologic methods of pain and anxiety management for laceration repair in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 1162-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dahlquist LM, Weiss KE, Clendaniel LD, Law EF, Ackerman CS, McKenna KD. Effects of videogame distraction using a virtual reality type head-mounted display helmet on cold pressor pain in children. J Pediatr Psychol 2009; 34: 574-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sullivan C, Schneider PE, Musselman RJ, Dummett Jr CO, Gardiner D. The effect of virtual reality during dental treatment on child anxiety and behavior. ASDC J Dent Child 2000; 67: 193-6 160-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 315-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The wand vs. traditional injection: A comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22: 458-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Howard KE, Freeman R. Reliability and validity of a faces version of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007; 17: 281-8
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hockenberry MJ, Wilson D, Winkelstein ML. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing. 7th ed.. St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier; 2005: p. 1259
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Badalaty MM, Houpt MI, Koenigsberg SR, Maxwell KC, DesJardins PJ. A comparison of chloral hydrate and diazepam sedation in young children. Pediatr Dent 1990; 12: 33-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Currie WR, Biery KA, Campbell RL, Mourino AP. Narcotic sedation: An evaluation of cardiopulmonary parameters and behavior modification in pediatric dental patients. J Pedod 1988; 12: 230-49
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Doring KR. Evaluation of an alphaprodine-hydroxyzine combination as a sedative agent in the treatment of the pediatric dental patient. J Am Dent Assoc 1985; 111: 567-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Houpt MI, Weiss NJ, Koenigsberg SR, Desjardins PJ. Comparison of chloral hydrate with and without promethazine in the sedation of young children. Pediatr Dent 1985; 7: 41-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Elective use of minimal, moderate and deep sedation and general anesthesia in pediatric dental patients. Pediatric Dent 2004; 24: 90-8
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Bellieni CV, Cordelli DM, Raffaelli M, Ricci B, Morgese G, Buonocore G. Analgesic effect of watching TV during venipuncture. Arch Dis Child 2006; 91: 1015-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hoffman HG, Doctor JN, Patterson DR, Carrougher GJ, Furness 3rd TA. Virtual reality as an adjunctive pain control during burn wound care in adolescent patients. Pain 2000; 85: 305-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cassidy KL, Reid GJ, McGrath PJ, Finley GA, Smith DJ, Morley C. et al. Watch needle, watch TV: Audiovisual distraction in preschool immunization. Pain Med 2002; 3: 108-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sparks L. Taking the “ouch” out of injections for children. Using distraction to decrease pain. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2001; 26: 72-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dowling JS. Humor: A coping strategy for pediatric patients. Pediatr Nurs 2002; 28: 123-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 O'Donnell JJ, Maurice SC, Beattie TF. Emergency analgesia in the paediatric population. Part III non-pharmacological measures of pain relief and anxiolysis. Emerg Med J 2002; 19: 195-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rusy LM, Weisman SJ. Complementary therapies for acute pediatric pain management. Pediatr Clin North Am 2000; 47: 589-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Berggren U, Meynert G. Dental fear and avoidance: Causes, symptoms, and consequences. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 109: 247-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC. Children's ratings of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 1995; 5: 81-5
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S. Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. N Y State Dent J 1997; 63: 24-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schleder JR, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The periodontal ligament injection: A comparison of 2% lidocaine, 3% mepivacaine, and 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in human mandibular premolars. J Endod 1988; 14: 397-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Oztas N, Ulusu T, Bodur H, Dogan C. The wand in pulp therapy: An alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Quintessence Int 2005; 36: 559-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Malamed SF. Sedation: A Guide to Patient Management. 4th ed.. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co.; 2003: p. 337
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Ran D, Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiving periodontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (Wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003; 27: 247-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ashkenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effectiveness of computerized delivery of intrasulcular anesthetic in primary molars. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 1418-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nakai Y, Milgrom P, Mancl L, Coldwell SE, Domoto PK, Ramsay DS. Effectiveness of local anesthesia in pediatric dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 1699-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent 1996; 18: 301-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sharaf AA. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 1997; 64: 276-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ralph E, McDonland RE, Avery DR. Local anesthe ¬ sia for the child and adolescent. In: McDonland RE, Avery DR. editors. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 7th ed.. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co.; 1985: p. 288-90
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Wright GZ, Starkey PE, Gardiner DE. Managing Children's Behavior in the Dental Office. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co.; 1983: p. 132-3
    Google Scholar