Comparison of topical EMLA 5% oral adhesive to benzocaine 20% on the pain experienced during palatal anesthetic infiltration in children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the pain responses of children during local anesthetic infiltration at bilateral palatal sites prepared with the topical application of benzocaine 20% oral adhesive (Orabase-B) versus benzocaine 20% gel (Hurricaine) or EMLA 5% oral adhesive (EMLA 5% cream in Orabase Plain). METHODS: Forty subjects, aged 7-15 years old, received bilateral palatal injections following topical application of anesthetic agents applied in a randomized, crossover design. Pain responses were compared based upon subject self-report using a visual analogue scale (VAS), changes in the subject's heart rate, and operator assessment using a modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CPS) that rated behavioral changes in children. Following the injections, the subjects were asked to choose which agent was preferred based on comfort and taste acceptance. RESULTS: All the agents tested were equivalent in injection pain response comparisons, but Hurricaine had a slight advantage in expressed subject preference and taste acceptance over the other topical anesthetic agents tested. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of EMLA 5% oral adhesive over other commercially available products containing benzocaine 20% is not recommended for palatal site preparation in children. The lack of demonstrated superiority in efficacy and subject preference, the necessity to custom mix the cream into an oral adhesive paste, the extended duration of time required for onset of action, the greater potential for complications associated with systemic absorption, and product cost preclude the use of EMLA 5% oral adhesive as an intraoral topical anesthetic agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".