ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07292194Updated May 6, 2026

Clinical Trial Comparing Pain Perception in Children Using Two Different Local Anesthesia Tools

An interventional study of super pen in Injection Pain, Local Anesthesia Infiltration and Pediatric Patient, sponsored by Lamis D. Rajab. Completed at 1 site in Jordan. Open to participants aged 6 Years to 12 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-06.

Sponsored by Lamis D. Rajab · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
54
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
6 Years to 12 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical study is to learn whether the Super Pen (SP) device can reduce pain during local anesthesia (LA) infiltration for primary teeth compared to the conventional syringe (CS) in children aged 6-12 years. It will also explore factors that influence children's pain perception and their preferences for the anesthesia delivery method.

The main questions this study aims to answer are:

  • Does the Super Pen (SP) reduce the pain experienced during LA infiltration compared to the conventional syringe (CS)?
  • How do factors such as age, sex, and arch treated (maxilla or mandible) influence children's pain perception when using the SP?
  • Which method-SP or CS-do children prefer during LA infiltration?

Participants will:

Receive local anesthesia using both the SP and CS techniques in a split-mouth design.

Have their pain responses assessed using self-reported, behavioral, and physiological measures.

Indicate their preference for either technique after both experiences.

Read the detailed description

This clinical study aims to evaluate and compare the pain perception of pediatric patients aged 6-12 years during local anesthetic (LA) infiltration for primary teeth using the Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Delivery (CCLAD) system-Super Pen (SP)-versus the Conventional Syringe (CS) technique. The study follows a split-mouth crossover design, in which each child receives anesthesia using both techniques in separate appointments, allowing for direct within-subject comparison.

Pain assessment will be conducted using a combination of self-reported, behavioral, and physiological measures: the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), the revised Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (r-FLACC) behavioral pain scale, and heart rate monitoring. These multiple pain measures used provide a comprehensive evaluation of the child's pain experience.

The study will also investigate the influence of age, sex, and anatomical site (maxilla or mandible) on pain perception during SP administration. In addition, children's preferences for the two delivery systems (SP versus CS) will be recorded after both experiences to assess acceptance and comfort.

The findings of this research aim to contribute to improving pain management strategies in pediatric dentistry, supporting the use of more comfortable and child-friendly anesthesia delivery systems to enhance the dental experience and reduce anxiety in young patients.

02

Conditions studied

  • Injection Pain
  • Local Anesthesia Infiltration
  • Pediatric Patient

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • clinical trial
  • split mouth
  • dental pain
  • local anesthesia device
  • local anesthesia infiltration
03

In context

Toothache

142 studies on the registry are indexed under Toothache; 28 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 54 is below the median of 84 across 123 interventional studies indexed under Toothache.

Browse Toothache studies →

Lead sponsor

Lamis D. Rajab is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
6 Years to 12 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Children who were 6-12 years of age, of both sexes.
  2. Children who were healthy and medically fit; .
  3. Children who had positive (Class 3) or definitely positive (Class 4) behavior during preoperative behavioral assessments according to the Frankl Scale at the enrollment visit.
  4. Children who require bilateral LA infiltration injections for primary teeth, either in the maxilla or mandible, for dental treatment (different types of restoration, stainless steel crowns, pulp therapy, and extractions).
  5. Children with positive consent forms approved by their parents/ legal guardians.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Children who have had a history of unpleasant experiences in medical settings and/or LA injection procedures.
  2. Children with any mental, visual, or auditory impairment.
  3. Children who have medical or developmentally compromising conditions.
  4. Children who had developmental delay problems.
  5. Children with a history of chronic disease or use of medication that contraindicate the use of local anesthetics.
  6. Children who had active pathosis at the injection site that could affect anesthetic assessment.
  7. Patients who have negative (Class 2) or definitely negative (Class 1) behavior during preoperative behavioral assessments according to the Frankl Scale . - -
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
54 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Super Pen

    Super Pen Computer-controlled Local Anesthesia delivery system

    Device: super pen

  • No intervention
    Conventional Syringe

    Conventional metal syringe

Interventions

  • Devicesuper pen

    computer controlled local anesthesia delivery device

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Self-reported pain using faces pain scale-revised (FPS-r)

    Pain intensity measured using the Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R), ranging from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicate greater pain.

    Time frame: Immediately post-procedural (within 1 minute after completion of the local anesthetic injection)

  2. Observer-reported pain using Revised Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale

    Pain behavior measured using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability - Revised (FLACC-R) Scale, scored from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicate greater pain-related distress.

    Time frame: Periprocedural (during local anesthetic injection, from needle insertion until completion of anesthetic delivery)

  3. Physiological-Heart Rate

    Changes in heart rate measured in beats per minute (bpm); increases in heart rate indicate higher physiological arousal associated with pain

    Time frame: Baseline (5 minutes prior to local anesthetic injection) and periprocedural (during local anesthetic injection, from needle insertion until completion of anesthetic delivery)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Lamis
    Amman, Jordan
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Jan 2026 to primary completion in Apr 2026, 3 months.

Of 44 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Toothache, half reached primary completion within 5 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 3 and three quarters within 15. This study's 3 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 45 studies reached it within 5 months; a quarter within 3 and three quarters within 12.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 18, 2025
First posted
Dec 18, 2025
StartActual
Jan 1, 2026
Primary completionActual
Apr 1, 2026
CompletionActual
Apr 1, 2026
Last update
May 6, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 6, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07292194
Lead sponsor
Lamis D. Rajab
Responsible party
Lamis D. Rajab (professor, University of Jordan) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Dec 18, 2025
Start date
Jan 1, 2026
Primary completion
Apr 1, 2026
Completion
Apr 1, 2026
Last update
May 6, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion