Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 27;2020(2):CD011024. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011024.pub2
Study Reason for exclusion
Aghahi 2017 Adult sample
Alamoudi 2016 Comparison of different types of anaesthesia
Aminabadi 2009b RCT comparing different sites of LA ‐ however, different LA techniques were used, which is not within the remit of this review
Ashkenazi 2005 Delivery of intrasulcular LA ‐ 3 groups each using different behaviour management techniques, including sedation which was not used in all groups
Ashkenazi 2006 Comparison of different techniques for injection of LA (not the remit of this review), using a computerised system
Babaji 2017 No LA administered
Baghdadi 2000 Comparison of different types of anaesthesia
Bajric 2015 Not an RCT
Brignardello‐Petersen 2018 Opinion paper
Brownbill 1987 Randomised study comparing 2 different interventions on different gauge needles with no control group
Chan 2012 Evaluation of pulsed Nd:YAG laser for inducing pulpal analgesia
Eren 2013 No LA administered
Fathi 2012 RCT to study the effect of distraction and counter‐stimulation, however results discuss only type/technique of LA. No results for intervention and therefore does not fit our inclusion criteria
Filcheck 2005 RCT on audiovisual distraction as intervention for children's restorative treatment. No separate data for delivery of LA
Gazal 2016 Adult sample
Hembrecht 2013 Partially cross‐over, no separate data for outcome investigated using a parallel design
Hermes 2005 Includes patients over 18 years old, no separate data for children
Hoge 2012 RCT on the use of video eyewear as intervention, however no separate data for delivery of LA, hence not fitting our inclusion criteria
Houpt 1997 RCT on topical anaesthetics, study included participants over the age of 18 years
Klein 2005 RCT measuring the quality of 2 different techniques of LA and 2 different delivery systems. Quality of LA assessed. Although disruptive behaviour during LA was assessed we felt this study could not be included as it compared 2 different techniques of LA (i.e.: palatal approach anterior superior nerve block and multiple supraperiosteal injections)
Koyuturk 2009 RCT comparing efficacy of LA delivery by 2 dentists, both using the wand and conventional LA. In results and discussion study also compares children's behaviour during delivery of LA using wand or conventional syringe between practitioners and within the same practitioner. Study included children requiring maxillary and mandibular LA but unclear how many children were in each group. Unclear if children received both LAs, and if not, not discussed whether children were seen again for completion of treatment
Kuscu 2006 Assessment of the physical appearance of dental injectors
Lodaya 2010 Study measures transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as a type of anaesthetic. It measures effectiveness, therefore does not fit our inclusion criteria
Marwah 2005 RCT on music intervention. No separate data for each treatment or for delivery of LA
Melamed 1976 RCT looking at the effect of film modelling in reducing disruptive behaviour in children. No separate data for delivery of LA
Naidu 2004 Study investigates different techniques of LA, which is not the remit of this review
Nayak 2006 Study comparing 3 different LA agents
NCT01883232 Assessment of the efficacy of analgesic buffering with sodium bicarbonate
NCT03680625 Medical setting, not dental
Oulis 1996 Study comparing mandibular infiltration versus mandibular block anaesthesia
Pedersen 2017 Adult sample
Peretz 1999 RCT studying the effect of breathing as a distraction technique during delivery of LA. Study excluded as nitrous oxide was used in some but not all subjects
Prabhakar 2007 No separate data for delivery of LA
Ram 2006 RCT comparing 2 different LA techniques delivered using the Wand (palatal approach anterior superior alveolar injection and periodontal ligament injection) and supraperiosteal infiltration using a conventional syringe
Ram 2010 Comparison of behaviour in children using nitrous oxide on one group and using audiovisual glasses on another group. Not RCT
Ram 2012 Different techniques of LA measured over 2 visits, not the remit of this review
Roeber 2011 RCT on the effect of vibrajet. Nitrous oxide sedation used on about half the patients in control and intervention groups. Excluded as per protocol as nitrous oxide not used equally in control and test groups
Roghani 1999 Study evaluating the efficacy of different LA
Sammons 2007 Treatment performed under general anaesthetic and measures effectiveness
Shahi 2018 Adult sample
Sharma 2014 Study evaluating efficacy of different forms of topical anaesthesia
Sixou 2008 It measures effectiveness, not RCT, no control group
Sixou 2009 No control group, not RCT
Stecker 2002 LA not delivered to participants
Vika 2009 Behavioural interventions to increase acceptance of LA in phobic patients over 5 appointments. Intervention in adults
Wahl 2001 Comparison of different anaesthetic solutions, not in our inclusion criteria
Wambier 2018 No LA given (study is for rubber dam clamp placement)
Wilson 1999 No separate data for intraoperative distress during provision of LA
Wright 1991 Not true RCT as sequence determined by a non‐random method

LA = local anaesthetic; RCT = randomised controlled trial.