Erratum: Addendum: Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.

[This corrects the article on p. 547 in vol. 21, PMID: 34909472.].

Erratum: Addendum: Comparative evaluation of efficacy of external vibrating device and counterstimulation on child's dental anxiety and pain perception during local anesthetic administration: a clinical trial.

[This corrects the article on p. 345 in vol. 21, PMID: 34395902.].

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of Physics Forceps in pediatric dental extractions. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with a parallel-arm design and identical allocation ratio (1:1). Children (n=104) were randomly divided into two groups for extraction of mandibular primary teeth (group I: Physics Forceps; group II: conventional forceps). The outcome variables assessed in the study were the time taken for extraction, pre- and postoperative anxiety (using RMS pictorial scale), incidence of fractured teeth, and postoperative pain on the first and third days (using the Wong-Baker faces pain scale). RESULTS: A significant reduction (P < 0.001) in intraoperative time, anxiety, and incidence of tooth fracture was confined to group I. The pain significantly reduced from the first to the third postoperative day in both groups, but the mean reduction in RMS scores in the physics forceps group was far better than that in the conventional forceps group. CONCLUSION: Physics Forceps aid in extraction of primary teeth with minimal trauma to supporting structures, as well as reducing anxiety in the pediatric population.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of external vibrating device and counterstimulation on child's dental anxiety and pain perception during local anesthetic administration: a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of external vibrating devices and counterstimulation on a child's dental anxiety, apprehension, and pain perception during local anesthetic administration. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, single-blinded interventional, clinical trial. One hundred children aged 4-11 years, requiring pulp therapy or extraction under local anesthesia (LA), were recruited and allocated equally into two groups (1:1) based on the interventions used: Group BD (n = 50) received vibration using a Buzzy® device {MMJ Labs, Atlanta, GE, USA} as a behavior guidance technique; Group CS (n = 50) received counterstimulation for the same technique. Anxiety levels [Venham's Clinical Anxiety Rating Scale (VCARS), Venham Picture Test (VPT), Pulse oximeter {Gibson, Fingertip Pulse Oximeter}, Beijing, China)] were assessed before, during, and after LA administration, while pain perception [Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)] was evaluated immediately after injection. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t-test to assess the mean difference between the two groups and the repeated measures ANOVA for testing the mean difference in the pulse rates. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Significant differences in mean pulse rate values were observed in both groups. In contrast, the children in the BD group had higher diminution (P < 0.05), whereas the mean VCARS and VPT scores were conspicuous (P < 0.05). Based on the mean WBFPS and VAS scores, delayed pain perception after LA injection was more prominent in the BD group than in the CS group. CONCLUSION: External vibration using a Buzzy® device is comparatively better than counterstimulation in alleviating needle-associated anxiety in children requiring extraction and pulpectomy.