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
. 2025 Oct;18(10):1278-1282.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3332. Epub 2025 Oct 18.

Comparative Evaluation of Pain Reduction with Vibration Using Speech Stimulator vs 2% Lignocaine Topical Gel Application Prior to Greater Palatine Nerve Block in 7-12-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Santhosh Prasanth  1 , B Padmakumari  1 , D Bhageeradhi  1 , B Seethal  1
Affiliations

Comparative Evaluation of Pain Reduction with Vibration Using Speech Stimulator vs 2% Lignocaine Topical Gel Application Prior to Greater Palatine Nerve Block in 7-12-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Santhosh Prasanth et al. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2025 Oct.

Abstract

Aims and background: Pain is one of the most important causes of anxiety in pediatric dental patients. A painful intraoral nerve block could detrimentally affect the child's behavior in the dental setting. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the pain reduction effectiveness of the vibration technique by speech stimulator compared to 2% lignocaine topical gel in 7-12-year-old children requiring a greater palatine nerve (GPN) block.

Methods: This study was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial that enrolled 60 children between 7 and 12 years old. The randomization list was generated by block randomization, and two groups were designated. The two groups of 30 samples each were selected based on the types of preanesthetic preparations received. The first group (group A) was assigned 2% lignocaine gel while the second group (group B) received vibration using a speech simulator for preanesthetic preparation at the site of the GPN block. The preanesthetic techniques were administered by pretrained and blinded assessors. The response of all the subjects was assessed using the facial pain scale (FPS) and SEM score (Sound, Eye, Motor) by an assessor. The FPS score was recorded using the response of the child with the scale ranging from 0 to 10, following the GPN block. Whereas the SEM score was evaluated by the assessor to assess the pain perception of the child, with scores ranging from 1 to 4. The Mann-Whitney U test was employed to analyze the data from this study.

Results: It was found that the difference in the mean scores of FPS and SEM scales between group A and group B was statistically significant. The mean scores of both FPS and SEM scales were higher in group A (2% lignocaine gel) (p < 0.001) than in group B (vibration using speech stimulator).

Conclusion: The study demonstrated that when vibration was used as preanesthetic preparation, it caused less pain/discomfort during the administration of a GPN block than 2% lignocaine gel application.

Clinical significance: The preanesthetic technique employing vibration could be an alternative or could replace the 2% lignocaine topical anesthetic application, especially in nerve blocks of areas with thick underlying mucoperiosteum (nasopalatine or GPN block).

How to cite this article: Prasanth S, Padmakumari B, Bhageeradhi D, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Pain Reduction with Vibration Using Speech Stimulator vs 2% Lignocaine Topical Gel Application Prior to Greater Palatine Nerve Block in 7-12-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(10):1278-1282.

Keywords: 2% Lignocaine topical gel; Children; Greater palatine nerve block; Pain reduction; Randomized controlled trial; Speech stimulator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: NoneConflict of interest: None

Figures

Fig. 1:
Fig. 1:
Comparison of FBRS score between the groups
Fig. 2:
Fig. 2:
Comparison of mean FPS score between the groups
Fig. 3:
Fig. 3:
Comparison of mean SEM score between the groups
Fig. 4:
Fig. 4:
CONSORT (2010)-based flowchart for the current trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bennet RC. Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors; 1990. Monheim's Local Anesthesia and Pain Control in Dental Practice; pp. 5–7.
    1. 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. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duplisea MJ, Flores K. Buzzing away the pain: using an electric toothbrush for vibration anesthesia during painful procedures. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36(3):414–415. - PubMed
    1. Haidar NA, Al Amri MH, Sendad NG, et al. Efficacy of Buzzy device versus EMLA cream for reducing pain during needle-related procedures in children: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2024;40(3):180–186. - PubMed
    1. Hendrix JM, Garmon EH. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System; pp. 1–13. [Internet] - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources