If this is not your name, click here.
| | If this is not your name, click here. | | |
| | Contact Us | Order Now | Journals | Bookstore | Register a colleague | | |
| |  APHA: Electronic Dental Anesthesia Acceptable Alternative To Injected Anesthesia By Emma Hitt Special to DG News ATLANTA, GA -- October 24, 2001-- Electronic dental anesthesia (EDA) appears to be a more effective anesthetic than a local anesthetic administered by injection. Additionally, almost all patients found the procedure acceptable, according to new study findings. Lisa Fleck with Minnesota State University, in Mankato, United States, and colleagues presented the research today at the 2001 American Public Health Association (APHA) 129th Annual Meeting, in Atlanta, Georgia. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved EDA for use in the United States, a manufacturer of the product, 3M, pulled the product off the market, "not because it wasn’t working, but because the marketability wasn’t there," Ms Fleck told Doctor's Guide, The EDA procedure employs electrodes, which are placed on the patients’ face. As a current is administered, the patient turns a knob to control the flow. A total of 12 patients used the device to see how its ability as an anesthetic compared to that of an injection. One half of each patient’s mouth was treated with an injection of local anesthesia and scaled and root planed. The other half of the patient’s mouth was treated with EDA and the same procedure was performed. The researchers measured the patients’ blood pressure at 5 intervals during the treatment, and patients filled out a pain scale before and after each side of the mouth was completed. According to Ms Fleck, the patients’ blood pressure spiked immediately following the injection. In contrast, blood pressure remained level throughout the procedure with the EDA. In addition, fewer patients receiving EDA reported experiencing moderate pain or discomfort compared to those receiving an injection. Eleven of the 12 patients found the procedure acceptable. "One patient did not like having to control the level of current and would have preferred to rely on the dentist," she said. "The main reason people would choose this method is that they are needle phobic," Ms Fleck said. According to Ms Fleck, a major benefit is that there is no residual numbness or slurred speech after use. "Another advantage is that the blood flow to the area is increased with the use of the EDA, and this may hasten recovery and improve healing, especially for more invasive procedures," Ms Fleck said. Ms Fleck advised that EDA is contraindicated for certain patients, such as if the patient cannot follow direction, has a pacemaker, heart disease, epilepsy, or is pregnant.
|
