Auxiliary Aids to Alleviate Pain and Anxiety during Local Anesthesia Administration: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In dentistry, pain and anxiety have been the most challenging aspect in the management of a pediatric patient. When every effort to perform local anesthesia (LA) is not successful, the result would be more stressful for both the dentist and the patient. The so-called clichéd paradigm that "pain and dentistry are inseparable" can be resolved by updating the knowledge and skills of the practitioner by using the more advanced techniques in controlling and managing the pain. An array of techniques for administering the LA to improve the comfort level of our patients has been the area of interest. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of various adjunctive aids of LA in reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients of the 6-8 years age-group. A total of 90 child dental patients were selected and randomly divided into six groups, i.e., control, topical gel, audio, audiovisual, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), and Vibraject group. Physiological parameters, psychological parameters, and pain assessment were recorded. RESULTS: As reflected by the results, the minimum pulse rate "during" and "after" LA administration is seen in A/V (D) and TENS (E) "during" LA administration. Children were less anxious and more relaxed in the audiovisual group and TENS group. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and Vibraject groups showed maximum reduction in pain. CONCLUSION: A/V (D) and TENS (E) groups exhibited the least anxiety. Also, the minimum pain was felt using TENS (E) and Vibraject (F) and hence, may be considered as adjunctive aids in pain reduction during LA administration. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Auxiliary Aids to Alleviate Pain and Anxiety during Local Anesthesia Administration: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):104-108.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".