Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Winter;49(1):3-8.

Should a mucoadhesive patch (DentiPatch) be used for gingival anesthesia in children?

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Should a mucoadhesive patch (DentiPatch) be used for gingival anesthesia in children?

Shelly S Stecker et al. Anesth Prog. 2002 Winter.

Abstract

A local anesthetic-impregnated mucosal adhesive patch (DentiPatch) was compared with topical anesthetic (Hurricaine Dry Handle Swab) for gingival anesthesia before rubber dam clamp placement in children. Twenty-eight children needing sealants on their posterior teeth were enrolled in this study. Topical anesthesia was provided using either the mucoadhesive patch (20% lidocaine) or topical anesthetic (20% benzocaine). Subjects were randomized using a split mouth model. Either the patch or topical anesthetic was applied to the gingiva for 5 minutes or 1 minute, respectively. Subjects used a visual analog scale to describe their pain during the procedure. Linear regression and mixed linear models were used for data analysis. The visual analog scale results (pain scores) showed no significant difference between treatments. The mean per-child patch-sticking fraction was 29.7%. Patch adherence to oral mucosa increased with age in girls (P = .0045), but not in boys. The DentiPatch is as effective as, although not superior to, the Hurricaine Dry Handle Swab for gingival anesthesia before rubber dam clamp placement in children. These study results would not support the use of the DentiPatch for gingival anesthesia in children because of poor adherence to oral mucosa and the extra time necessary to apply and retain the device.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 Apr;18(4):309-1O, 312-4, 316; quiz 318 - PubMed
    1. Pain. 1998 Aug;77(2):143-9 - PubMed
    1. Pediatr Dent. 1999 Mar-Apr;21(2):125-7 - PubMed
    1. Odontol Revy. 1972;23(4):421-8 - PubMed
    1. Pediatr Dent. 2001 May-Jun;23(3):265-9 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources