Technologie C-CLAD * de pointe pour une anesthésie dentaire sans effort:

Dentapen® offre aux patients un meilleur confort en réduisant significativement la douleur et en éliminant la peur des injections.

Dentapen® aide les dentistes à éviter les tensions musculaires causées par des injections manuelles répétées.

Convient à toutes les techniques d’anesthésie: palatine, infiltration, tronculaire et intraligamentaire.


Comment fonctionne Dentapen?

1. Le microprocesseur du Dentapen® surveille en permanence (des centaines de fois par seconde) la pression d’injection. Les engrenages et les composants mécaniques sont similaires à ceux utilisés dans l’horlogerie de luxe suisse.
3. L’utilisation de technologies de pointe, comme par exemple une carte de circuit imprimé flexible, nous a permis de créer l’injecteur C-CLAD le plus compact au monde.
2. Cette mesure est traitée par les algorithmes de contrôle avancés afin de fournir un flux d’injection optimal.
Dentapen® supprime les surpressions inhérentes aux injections manuelles, ce qui est la clé pour obtenir une injection constante, donc parfaite et indolore.
4. La grande capacité de ses batteries au lithium permet au Dentapen® de fonctionner à sa capacité maximale lors des calculs, puis de réaliser l’injection parfait décrite précédemment.

A propos de la Technologie C-CLAD:

“The number 1 criteria in choosing a dentist is: A dentist who can provide painless anaesthesia

How dentists are judged by patients, St Georges J, Dent Today, 2004.

“The premise behind computer controlled injection devices is in part, that they can do what our hands cannot. That is, deliver local anaesthetic at a constant rate despite the density of the tissue.”

Pain Control Patient Management: A review of Computer Controlled Injection Devices, David Isen, 2001

“The greater control over the syringe and the fixed flow rates are responsible for a significantly improved injection experience, as demonstrated in many clinical studies conducted with C-CLAD devices in dentistry. A growing number of clinical trials in medicine also demonstrate measurable benefits of C-CLAD technology.”

“Local aesthetics have made a great advancement in dentistry and have changed patients’ perspectives of dental procedures to a great extent.”

Advances in dental local anaesthesia techniques and devices: An update, Payal Saxena, 2013.

“Results indicated that the system was highly preferred to traditional injection techniques, regardless of the arch and quadrant receiving the injection. Several factors may have contributed to this preference, including increased patient comfort, the nonthreatening appearance of the instrument, and the lack of residual facial numbness commonly associated with oral aesthetics injections”

A computer-controlled aesthetic delivery system in a periodontal practice: patient satisfaction and acceptance, J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002.

“Recent developments in C-CLAD systems have made the delivery of local anaesthesia to patients significantly more comfortable and, with PDL, AMSA and P-ASA injections, considerably more successful.”

“The ability to deliver painless injections and a desirable level and duration of anaesthesia results in reduced patient fear, reduced patient stress (and therefore reduced stress for the clinician) and can aid patient compliance with current and future dental treatment.”

Aesthetic Agents and C-CLAD in Dentistry, Stanley F Malamed, 2010.

“The introduction of computer-controlled local aesthetics delivery (C-CLAD) systems has enhanced the delivery of local anaesthetic for many dentists and their patients. These devices have demonstrated great utility in the painless delivery of dental local aesthetics”

Handbook of Local Anesthesia, Stanley F Malamed, 2012.

Bibliography / Other References

1. Kleinknecht RA, Klepac RK, Alexander LD. Origins and characteristics of fear of dentistryJ Am Dent Assoc. 1973;
2. Milgrom P, Mancl L, King B, Weinstein P. Origins of childhood dental fearBehav Res Ther. 1995;
3. Malamed SF. Local anesthesiaJ Calif Dent Assoc. 1998;
4. Saloum FS, Baumgartner JC, Marshall G, Tinkle J. A clinical comparison of pain perception to the Wand and a traditional syringeOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;
5. Hochman M, Chiarello D, Hochman CB, Lopatkin R, Pergola S. Computerized local anesthetic delivery vs. traditional syringe technique. Subjective pain response. N Y State Dent J. 1997;
6. Feda M, Al Amoudi N, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N, Masoud I, et al. A comparative study of children’s pain reactions and perceptions to AMSA injection using CCLAD versus traditional injectionsJ Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;
7. Thoppe-Dhamodhara YK, Asokan S, John BJ, Pollachi-Ramakrishnan G, Ramachandran P, Vilvanathan P. Cartridge syringe vs computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system: Pain related behaviour over two sequential visits – a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;
8. Mittal M, Kumar A, Srivastava D, Sharma P, Sharma S. Pain Perception: Computerized versus Traditional Local Anesthesia in Pediatric PatientsJ Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;
9. Langthasa M, Yeluri R, Jain AA, Munshi AK. Comparison of the pain perception in children using comfort control syringe and a conventional injection technique during pediatric dental proceduresJ Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012;
10. Baghlaf K, Alamoudi N, Elashiry E, Farsi N, El Derwi DA, Abdullah AM. The pain-related behavior and pain perception associated with computerized anesthesia in pulpotomies of mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2015;
11. Alamoudi NM, Baghlaf KK, Elashiry EA, Farsi NM, El Derwi DA, Bayoumi AM. The effectiveness of computerized anesthesia in primary mandibular molar pulpotomy: A randomized controlled trialQuintessence Int. 2016;
12. Kandiah P, Tahmassebi JF. Comparing the onset of maxillary infiltration local anaesthesia and pain experience using the conventional technique vs. the Wand in childrenBr Dent J. 2012;
13. Tahmassebi JF, Nikolaou M, Duggal MS. A comparison of pain and anxiety associated with the administration of maxillary local analgesia with Wand and conventional technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;
14. Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringeBr Dent J. 2008;
15. Al Amoudi N, Feda M, Sharaf A, Hanno A, Farsi N. Assessment of the anesthetic effectiveness of anterior and middle superior alveolar injection using a computerized device versus traditional technique in childrenJ Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;
16. Klein U, Hunzeker C, Hutfless S, Galloway A. Quality of anesthesia for the maxillary primary anterior segment in pediatric patients: comparison of the P-ASA nerve block using CompuMed delivery system vs traditional supraperiosteal injectionsJ Dent Child (Chic) 2005;
17. Palm AM, Kirkegaard U, Poulsen S. The wand versus traditional injection for mandibular nerve block in children and adolescents: perceived pain and time of onset. Pediatr Dent. 2004;
18. Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringeJ Dent Child (Chic) 2003;
19. Kammerer PW, Schiegnitz E, von Haussen T, Shabazfar N, Kämmerer P, Willershausen B, et al. Clinical efficacy of a computerised device (STA) and a pressure syringe (VarioJect INTRA) for intraligamentary anaesthesiaEur J Dent Educ. 2015;
20. Singh S, Garg A. Comparison of the pain levels of computer controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in supraperiosteal injections: a randomized controlled clinical trialActa Odontol Scand. 2013;
21. Chang H, Noh J, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim TI, et al. Relief of Injection Pain During the Delivery of Local Anesthesia by Computer-Controlled Anesthetic Delivery System for Periodontal Surgery: Randomised Clinical Controlled TrialJ Periodontol. 2016;
22. Beneito-Brotons R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha M. Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: a preliminary studyMed Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;
23. Lee S, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injectionAnesth Prog. 2004;
24. Loomer PM, Perry DA. Computer-controlled delivery versus syringe delivery of local anesthetic injections for therapeutic scaling and root planingJ Am Dent Assoc. 2004;
25. Shah M, Shivaswamy S, Jain S, Tambwekar S. A clinical comparison of pain perception and extent of area anesthetized by Wand ((R)) and a traditional syringeJ Indian Soc Periodontol. 2012;
26. Özer S, Yaltirik M, Kirli I, Yargic I. A comparative evaluation of pain and anxiety levels in 2 different anesthesia techniques: locoregional anesthesia using conventional syringe versus intraosseous anesthesia using a computer-controlled system (Quicksleeper) Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;
27. Yenisey M. Comparison of the pain levels of computercontrolled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatmentJ Appl Oral Sci. 2009;
28. Yesilyurt C, Bulut G, Tasdemir T. Pain perception during inferior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringeBr Dent J. 2008;
29. Sumer M, Misir F, Koyuturk AE. Comparison of the Wand with a conventional techniqueOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;
30. Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringeOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;
31. Rosenberg ES. A computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system in a periodontal practice: patient satisfaction and acceptanceJ Esthet Restor Dent. 2002.