Vibration can reduce pain. This study was conducted to use this effect while injecting dental anesthesia. This split-

mouth randomized clinical trial was performed on 40 injection sites from 20 patients. In the experimental sides, the

turned-on device would be positioned in contact with the injection area for 5 seconds; then the anesthesia would be

administered, while the device was in place;  nally, the device would remain in place for 5 seconds after removing

the needle. In the control sides, the device would be placed on the mucosa in a similar fashion but turned off. Imme-

diately after removing the tip of Dental Vibe, patients were asked to rate their pain using Wong Baker method. Pain

scores were compared statistically. Average pain levels in the experimental and control sides were 1.95 ± 1.57 (95%

CI: 1.22 to 2.68) and 0.65 ± 0.81 (95% CI: 0.27 to 1.03), respectively. Their difference was signi cant according to

Wilcoxon test (P < 0.001). Age (P = 0.670), injection type (P = 0.175), and sex (P = 0.160) did not affect the response

local anesthesia (LA) is one of the most critical stages in

performing dental treatments. Since painful dental treat-

ments typically begin with LA, pain control at this step

is essential. Pain is a deterrent of dental treatment and

many patients avoid or cancel their treatments because

of this factor because of being afraid of pain, which is

usually caused by previous painful experiences during

dental procedures. Therefore, reducing dental pain is

important and researchers have been seeking methods

proposed to reduce or prevent pain while administer-

ing local anesthesia, including the application of topical

anesthetics, suggestion, slow injection , transcutaneous

electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) computer-assisted

local anesthesia (such as Wand), and vibration (Hersh et

al. 1996 Peretz et al., 2004 and Primosch 2003).

According to the “gate control” theory, providing

need to changing the routine protocols of injection. We

might decrease perceived pain in children.

This split-mouth randomized clinical trial was per-

formed on 40 injection sites from 20 patients (13 boys

and 7 girls, with an average age of 5.7 years old) referred

level of 3 or 4 (according to Frankel scale) determined

dible or maxilla.

from a box, for each patient. Patients with “vibration

onds; then the anesthesia would be administered, while

the device was in place;  nally, the device would remain

for the maxilla, using a carpul of the same anesthetic

solution. Of the 40 injections, 22 were IAN blocks while

fashion; the patient would receive as many carpules as

needed/wanted after the data collection.

 dence intervals (CI), Wilcoxon test and chi-square tests

used to compare control and treatment groups.

signi cantly, according to chi-square test (Table 1).

ics numb the injection surface and provide pain relief on

injection pain relies on causes like the amount, type,

and injection speed of anesthesia plus the experience

of clinician. In addition, local anesthetics have narrow

duced to solve this. TENS triggers large-diameter nerves

that are more sensitive to electrical stimuli than do

sense of pain travels at a 2 meters per second speed

C  bers will make the sensory area of the brain release

inhibitory neurotransmitters these and inhibit the acti-

vation of projection neurons within dorsal horn of spi-

nal cord, leading to gate closure over pain stimuli. This

is the reason vibration is used to reduce pain during

many painful medical and dental procedures (Reed 2001,

Ungor et al., 2014). Another factor that contributes to

can prolong and intensify the pain (Peretz et al 2004).

could not  nd signi cant differences between control

and treatment groups. Difference could be due to differ-

ent devices and methods.

This study has found DentalVibe as a useful and effec-

tive device in reducing pain while injecting local anes-

thesia.