Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2026
An Experimental Paradigm for the Prediction of Post-Operative Pain (PPOP)
Published on: January 27, 2010
Pain assessment by children and adolescents during intraosseous anaesthesia using a computerized system
Jean-Louis Sixou1, Alexia Marie-Cousin, Adeline Huet
1Department of Paediatric Dentistry, UFR d'Odontologie de l'Université de Rennes 1 and CHU de Rennes, 35043 Rennes Cedex, France. jean-louis.sixou@univ-rennes1.fr
Insights
Computerized intraosseous (IO) anesthesia using the QuickSleeper system was well-tolerated by children and adolescents. Most reported no or mild pain, with many finding it more comfortable than traditional dental anesthesia methods.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Dentistry
- Pain Management
- Anesthesiology
Background:
- Intraosseous (IO) anesthesia is effective in pediatric patients.
- The pain and acceptance of IO injections in children remain understudied.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the pain associated with computerized IO injections of 4% articaine with epinephrine in children and adolescents.
- Evaluate patient and operator-reported pain and discomfort levels.
Main Methods:
- Administered IO anesthesia using the QuickSleeper system to pediatric patients (mean age 10.4 years).
- Patients reported pain using the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
- Operators assessed patient pain and discomfort signs.
Main Results:
- 81.8% (FPS) and 83.9% (VAS) of patients reported no or mild discomfort.
- 58.9% of previously anesthetized children found computerized IO more comfortable than infiltration.
- Operators observed discomfort during penetration (18.3%) and injection (25.3%).
Conclusions:
- Computerized IO anesthesia with needle rotation and solution deposition is largely painless for children.
- This technique shows promise for trained pediatric dentists.
- Further research into patient-reported outcomes is warranted.
Background:
Intraosseous (IO) anaesthesia has been shown to be effective in children. However, the pain associated with anaesthetic injections, and its acceptance by children, have never been studied.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to assess the pain associated with the IO injection of 4% articaine with 1 : 200 000 epinephrine using the computerized QuickSleeper' system in a population of children and adolescents.
Design:
IO anaesthesia was performed on patients aged 10.4 +/- 2.6 years of age. The patients assessed their pain on a faces pain scale (FPS) and on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The operators were also asked to assess signs of patient pain/discomfort.
Results:
No pain or mild discomfort was reported by, respectively, 81.8% (FPS) and 83.9% (VAS) of the patients. Some 58.9% of children with previous experience of dental anaesthesia reported that computerized IO anaesthesia was more comfortable than traditional infiltration methods. Operators noted signs of discomfort during penetration and injection in 18.3% and 25.3% of the patients, respectively.
Conclusions:
This study showed that the majority of children reported no pain or mild pain when anaesthetic was administered by computerized needle rotation and solution deposition. This technique holds promise for use by trained paediatric dentists.
