World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


A Clinical Comparison of Pain Perception and Behavior in Children Using Conventional and Vibraject Injection Techniques

Calvin Hilary, C Preeja, G Midhun Mohan, KS Mukunda

Keywords : Conventional injection, Pain, Vibraject

Citation Information : Hilary C, Preeja C, Mohan GM, Mukunda K. A Clinical Comparison of Pain Perception and Behavior in Children Using Conventional and Vibraject Injection Techniques. World J Dent 2022; 13 (6):623-629.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2110

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-08-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy of vibraject in reducing pain and related disruptive behavior in children who underwent routine local anesthesia procedures in the dental setting. Materials and methods: A total of 60 healthy children who needed dental procedures on both sides of the oral cavity, which necessitates the administration of local anesthesia who visited the department, were selected for the study. The children were assigned into three groups based on their age. A split-mouth technique was used in the study. The children were given appointments for two consecutive days. In the first appointment, dental procedures were carried out with local anesthesia using a conventional injection technique, and on the next appointment, with the vibraject attachment. After the administration of local anesthesia, the evaluation of pain perception was recorded with the aid of Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS), followed by the assessment of the child's behavioral pattern based on Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale (FBRS). Results: The mean WBFPS score was higher with the conventional technique in comparison to the vibraject injection technique in all three age-groups of children. The overall standard deviation (SD) value was similar with both techniques, but the overall mean value was higher for the conventional technique compared to the vibraject injection technique, which was statistically significant. The mean value for FBRS scores was higher for the vibraject injection technique in children in the 6–9-year age-group, which was not statistically significant, but the mean value was higher for the conventional technique in children in the 9–12-year age-group which was also not statistically significant. However, statistical significance was observed in the 12–15 year age-group children who had a higher mean value with the vibraject technique in comparison to the conventional technique. Conclusion: The study gave promising results regarding the efficacy of vibraject in reducing pain and related disruptive behavior in children. Clinical significance: Vibraject can be used as the most cost-effective and easy painless technique to administer local anesthesia in pediatric clinical settings.

PDF Share
  1. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, et al. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128(6):756–766. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0301
  2. Czarnecki ML, Turner HN, Collins PM, et al. Procedural pain management: a position statement with clinical practice recommendations. Pain Manag Nurs 2011;12(2):95–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2011.02.003
  3. Milgrom P, Vignehsa H, Weinstein P. Adolescent dental fear and control: prevalence and theoretical implications. Behav Res Ther 1992;30(4):367–373. DOI: 10.1016/0005-7967(92)90048-l
  4. O'Brien L, Taddio A, Lyszkiewicz DA, et al. A critical review of the topical local anesthetic amethocaine (ametop) for pediatric pain. Paediatr Drugs 2005;7(1):41–54. DOI: 10.2165/00148581-200507010-00004
  5. Shane SM, Kessler S. Electricity for sedation in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1967;75(6):1369–1375. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1967.0460
  6. Nanitsos E, Vartuli R, Forte A, et al. The effect of vibration on pain during local anesthesia injections. Aust Dent J 2009;54(2):94–100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01100.x
  7. Ching D, Finkelman M, Loo CY. Effect of the dentalvibe injection system on pain during local anesthesia injections in adolescent patients. Pediatr Dent 2014;36(1):51–55.
  8. Rosivack RG, Koenigsberg SR, Maxwell KC. An analysis of the effectiveness of two topical anesthetics. Anesth Prog 1990;37(6): 290 –292.
  9. Melzack R, Katz J. The gate control theory: reaching for the brain. In craig KD, Hadjistavropoulos T. Pain: psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2004. ISBN 0-8058-4299-3.
  10. Kakigi R, Watanabe S. Pain relief by various kinds of interference stimulation applied to the peripheral skin in human: pain-related brain potentials following CO2 laser stimulation. J Peripher Nerv Syst 1996;1(3):189–198.
  11. Blair J. Vibraject form ITL Dental. Dent Econ 2002;92(12):90.
  12. Shilpapriya M, Jayanthi M, Reddy VN, et al. Effectiveness of new vibration delivery system on pain associated with injection of local anesthesia in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015;33(3):173–176. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.160343
  13. Elbay M, Şermet Elbay Ü, Yildirim S, et al. Comparison of injection pain caused by the dentalvibe injection system versus a traditional syringe for inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in paediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;16(2):123–128.
  14. Ungor C, Tosun E, Dayisoylu EH, et al. The effects of vibration on pain and anxiety during local anesthesia administration. JSM Dent 2013;2(1):1022.
  15. Ste Marie S, Powers M, Sheridan JJ. Vibratory stimulation as a method of reducing pain after orthodontic appliance adjustment. J Clin Orthod 2003;37(4):205–208.
  16. Chandrasekaran J, Prabhu D, Silviya, et al. Efficacy of painless injection technique–vibraject–clinical trial in Chennai, India. Int J Med Dent Sci 2014;3(1):250–256. DOI: 10.19056/ijmdsjssmes/2014/v3i1/80637
  17. Chaudhry K, Shishodia M, Singh C, et al. Comparative evaluation of pain perception by vibrating needle (VibrajectTM) and conventional syringe anesthesia during various dental procedures in pediatric patients: a short study. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 2015;1:1–5. DOI: 10.15713/ins.idmjar.5
  18. Midha V, Midha V, Dua R, et al. Auxiliary aids to alleviate pain and anxiety during local anesthesia administration: a comparative study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):104–108. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1935
  19. Quarnstrom F, Bang-Pastore SH, Woldemicael R, et al. Vibra Ject vs. the W and for the control of injection pain. Retrieved, 2017 from http://www.itldental.comlvibraject-wand.html.
  20. Roeber B, Wallace DP, Rothe V, et al. Evaluation of the effects of the VibraJect attachment on pain in children receiving local anesthesia. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(1):46–50.
  21. Saijo M, Ito E, Ichinohe T, et al. Lack of pain reduction by a vibrating local anesthetic attachment: a pilot study. Anesth Prog 2005;52(2):62–64. DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[62:LOPRBA]2.0.CO;2
  22. Yoshikawa F, Ushito D, Ohe D, et al. Vibrating dental local anesthesia attachment to reduce injection pain. J Jpn Dent Soc Anesthesiol 2003;31:194–195.
  23. Ghorbanzadeh S, Alimadadi H, Zargar N, et al. Effect of vibratory stimulation on pain during local anesthesia injections: a clinical trial. Restor Dent Endod 2019;44(4):e40. DOI: 10.5395/rd e.2019.44.e40
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.