Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41827245

Intraligamentary Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients: Is It an Effective Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Salerno Claudia, Cirio Silvia, Allam Aesha, et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/jcm15051828

Findings

Population Children and adolescents younger than 18 years undergoing dental treatment (mainly primary molars)

1 finding

Intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA)Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB)Pain perception during injection (VAS)
During injection · Pediatric dental treatment (pulpotomy, extraction, restorations)
SMD -0.11 [-0.90, 0.69]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 211 participants

Included primary studies 13

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Alamoudi 2016
The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: A randomized controlled trial.
PMID:26504907
2016this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Baghlaf 2015
The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: A…
PMID:26287025
2015this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Baghlaf 2023
Developmental Disturbance in Premolars After Intraligamental Anesthesia Using Computer-Controlled Local Anesthesia Delivery System:…
PMID:38259367
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Elbay 2016
Intraligamentary and Supraperiosteal Anesthesia Efficacy Using a Computer Controlled Delivery System in Mandibular Molars.
PMID:27472565
2016this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Haghgoo 2015
Comparison of periodontal ligament injection and inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars pulpotomy: a randomized…
PMID:26028895
2015this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Helmy 2022
Computer-controlled Intraligamentary local anaesthesia in extraction of mandibular primary molars: randomised controlled clinical trial.
PMID:35596166
2022this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Mittal 2019
Comparison of Pain Perception Using Conventional Versus Computer-Controlled Intraligamentary Local Anesthetic Injection for Extraction of…
PMID:31184941
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Orafi 2023
Efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block and intraligamentary anesthesia in the extraction of primary mandibular molars: A randomized…
PMID:37520609
2023this review onlyPain perception during injection (VAS)not extracted yet
Oztas 2005
The wand in pulp therapy: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block.
PMID:15997937
2005this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Patini 2018
Dental anaesthesia for children - effects of a computer-controlled delivery system on pain and heart rate: a randomised clinical trial.
PMID:30143396
2018this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Perugia 2017
Comparison of single tooth anaesthesia by computer-controlled local anaesthetic delivery system (C-CLADS) with a supraperiosteal…
PMID:29254346
2017this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Tekin 2012
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyPain perception during injection (VAS)not extracted yet
Yilmaz 2023
Comparison of the effectiveness of intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block on mandibular molar teeth in pediatric…
PMID:36773129
2023this review onlyPain perception during injection (VAS)not extracted yet

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationChildren and adolescents younger than 18 years undergoing any dental treatmentChildren aged 3 to 13 years, 859 enrolled (mostly primary mandibular molars) (n=13 studies)
InterventionILA delivered by conventional technique or computer-controlled delivery systemILA and computer-controlled ILA (CC-ILA)
ComparisonConventional local anesthesia (e.g., IANB, SPA) by traditional or computer-controlled delivery; alternative ILA delivery techniquesIANB, SPA, CC-SPA, CC-IANB, conventional ILA vs CC-ILA
OutcomesPrimary: pain/discomfort perception; secondary: anxiety, need for additional anesthesia, postoperative complicationsPain perception (VAS, ECS, VNRS, FPS), physiological parameters, behavior, patient preference, additional anesthesia, lip biting, hematoma, postoperative pain, developmental enamel defects
Study designsRCTsRCTs (n=13; 2 crossover, 4 split-mouth)
TimingNot specifiedInjection phase and procedure; 8-year follow-up in one study

AMSTAR 2 items

Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalNoPartial Yesno
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateYesYesyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalYesYesyes
8Included studies described in detailPartial YesPartial Yesyes
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: Yes · NRSI: N/ARCT: Yesno
10Funding of included studies reportedYesYesyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalNRSI: N/A · RCT: YesRCT: Yes · NRSI: N/Ano
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsYesYesyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalYesYesyes
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalYesYesyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallLowHighno