Endodontology| Volume 98, ISSUE 1, P124-131, July 2004

Download started.


Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand® or conventional syringe



      The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare the pain of injection and post-injection pain of the AMSA injection using the computer-assisted Wand Plus® injection system versus a conventional syringe.

      Study design

      Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received 2 blinded AMSA injections using the Wand Plus® system and a conventional syringe, at 2 separate appointments. The AMSA injection site was centered halfway between the midpalatine raphe and gingival margin of the first and second premolars. The pain of needle insertion, anesthetic solution deposition pain, and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker VAS for the 2 AMSA injections.


      For needle insertion, 38% of the subjects had moderate/severe pain with the Wand Plus® and 34% moderate/severe pain with the conventional syringe, with no significant difference between techniques. There was a significant difference for solution deposition pain, with the conventional syringe causing more moderate/severe pain (42% conventional vs. 25% for the Wand Plus®). Regarding postinjection pain, after numbness wore off there was no significant difference between the Wand Plus® injection technique (0% moderate pain) and the conventional syringe technique (8% moderate pain). Postinjection, approximately 8% to 10% of the subjects experienced slight palatal swelling and 2% experienced temporary numbness. These problems resolved quickly and were considered minor.


      The AMSA injection, using the Wand Plus®, resulted in similar pain ratings for needle insertion as the conventional syringe but statistically lower pain ratings upon anesthetic solution deposition. However, the AMSA, using either the Wand Plus® or a conventional syringe, has the potential to be a painful injection. We found the incidence of postinjection pain and sequelae was low with both techniques.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Friedman M
        • Hochman M
        A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control.
        Compendium. 1997; 18: 995-1003
        • Friedman M
        • Hochman M
        The AMSA injection: a new concept for local anesthesia of maxillary teeth using a computer-controlled injection system.
        Quintessence Inter. 1998; 29: 297-303
        • Friedman M
        • Hochman M
        Using AMSA and P-ASA nerve blocks for esthetic restorative dentistry.
        Gen Dent. 2001; 5: 506-511
        • Malamed S.F
        Handbook of local anesthesia.
        4th ed. Mosby, St. Louis1997 (p. 149, 150, 160)
      1. The Wand Plus® computer controlled anesthetic delivery system: 2000 product information guide.
        Milestone Scientific, Dental Division, Deerfield (Ill)2000
        • Hochman M
        • Chiarello D
        • Bozzi-Hochman C
        • Lopatkin R
        • Pergola S
        Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique.
        NY State Dent J. 1997; 63: 24-29
        • Levato C
        Giving the Wand® a shot.
        Dent Pract Finance. 1998; 4: 53-57
        • Asarch T
        • Allen K
        • Petersen B
        • Beiraghi S
        Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry.
        Pediatr Dent. 1999; 21: 421-424
        • Saloum F.S
        • Baumgartner J.C
        • Marshall G
        • Tinkle J
        A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand® and a traditional syringe.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 86: 691-695
        • Goodell G.G
        • Gallagher F.J
        • Nicoll B.K
        Comparison of a controlled injection pressure system with a conventional technique.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 90: 88-94
        • Gibson R.S
        • Allen K
        • Hutfless S
        • Beiraghi S
        The Wand® vs. traditional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviors.
        Pediatr Dent. 2000; 22: 458-462
        • Nicholson J.W
        • Berry T.G
        • Summitt J.B
        • Yuan C.H
        • Witten T.M
        Pain perception and utility: a comparison of the syringe and computerized local injection techniques.
        Gen Dent. 2001; 49: 167-173
        • Tan P.Y
        • Vukasin P
        • Chin I.D
        • et al.
        The Wand® local anesthetic delivery system. A more pleasant experience for anal anesthesia.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2001; 44: 686-689
        • Rosenberg E.S
        A computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system in a periodontal practice: patient satisfaction and acceptance.
        J Esthetic Restor Dent. 2002; 14: 39-46
        • Primosch R.E
        • Brooks R
        Influence of anesthetic flow rate delivered by the Wand® local anesthetic system on pain response to palatal injections.
        Am J Dent. 2002; 15: 15-20
        • True R.H
        • Elliott R
        Microprocessor-controlled local anesthesia versus the conventional syringe technique in hair transplantation.
        Dermatol Surg. 2002; 28: 463-468
        • Allen K.D
        • Kotil D
        • Larzelere R.E
        • Hutfless S
        • Beiraghi S
        Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children.
        Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24: 315-320
        • Fukayama H
        • Yoshikawa F
        • Kohase H
        • Umino M
        • Suzuki N
        Efficacy of anterior and middle superior alveolar (AMSA) anesthesia using a new injection system: the Wand.
        Quintessence Int. 2003; 34: 537-541
        • Corah N.L
        Development of a dental anxiey scale.
        J Dent Res. 1969; 48: 596
        • Corah N.L
        • Gale E.N
        • Illig S.J
        Assessment of a dental anxiety scale.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1978; 97: 816-819
        • Newton J.T
        • Buck D.J
        Anxiety and pain measures in dentistry: a guide to their quality and application.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 131: 1449-1457
        • Heft M.W
        • Parker S.R
        An experimental basis for revising the graphic rating scale for pain.
        Pain. 1984; 19: 153-161
        • Lee S
        • Reader A
        • Nusstein J
        • Beck M
        • Weaver J
        Anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection.
        J Endodon. 2002; 28: 249
        • McDaniel K.F
        • Rowe N.H
        • Charbeneau G.T
        Tissue response to an electric pulp tester.
        J Pros Dent. 1973; 29: 84-87
        • Martin M.D
        • Ramsay D.S
        • Whitney C
        • Fiset L
        • Weinstein P
        Topical anesthetic: differentiating the pharmacological and psychological contributions to efficacy.
        Anes Prog. 1994; 41: 40-47