Pain during primary molar local anaesthesia with <scp>SleeperOne5</scp> computerized device versus conventional syringe: A randomized, split‐mouth, crossover, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of controversial results from clinical studies comparing different dental local anesthesia methods in children, the primary objective of this randomized, split-mouth, crossover, controlled trial was to compare pain intensity during local anaesthesia (LA) performed with a computer-controlled LA delivery system (C-CLADS) versus a conventional syringe (CONV). Secondary objectives included comparisons during dental treatment. METHODS: Participants (4-8 years) with tooth pair requiring similar treatment were recruited from five French hospitals. The right primary molar, which was treated at the first visit, was randomly allocated to one of the anaesthesia groups (either intraosseous with C-CLADS or infiltration with CONV), whereas the contralateral molar (treated at the second visit) was assigned to the other group. Pain intensity and behaviour outcomes, assessed with the Faces Pain and Venham revised scales, respectively, were compared between groups using Proc mixed. Stratified analyses were performed on dentition and location. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, the analysis revealed reduced pain perception during LA in the C-CLADS group compared with the CONV group (-0.72, 95% CI: -1.43, -0.006), but not during dental treatment. Stratified analyses showed that this effect was observed only in primary dentition (p = .006) and mandibular molars (p = .005). Behavioural issues were fewer in the C-CLADS group than in the CONV group (p = .05) only during injection. CONCLUSION: C-CLADS emerged as the preferable system in primary dentition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".