Comparison of two types of electrodontometry devices when used to determine the effectiveness of anesthesia

Aim. To compare the diagnostic characteristics of IVN-01 Pulptest-Pro and PulpEst electrodontometry devices when using them to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthesia in dentistry.

Materials and methods. The randomized double-blind study involved 76 patients divided into two groups of 38 people. In the first group, the effectiveness of local anesthesia was evaluated by the IVN-01 Pulptest-Pro device (electrodontometry), in the second – by the PulpEst device (electrotesting). The patients were tested twice: before the injection of a local anesthetic, and after the latent period of anesthesia. This was followed by the necessary dental treatment, after which the painful sensations were assessed using a visual analog Heft-Parker scale.

Results. The threshold value of electrodontometry (EOM) in the diagnosis of pulpar anesthesia was 90 μA. The accuracy ofthe EOM test was 92.1%, sensitivity (Se) – 85.7%, specificity (Sp) – 95.8%. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were at the level of 92% and 92.3%, respectively. The threshold value of electrical testing (EPT) was 80 conventional units and was limited to the maximum value of the scale of the device. The accuracy of the EPT test was 76.3%, Se – 30.8%, Sp – 100.0%. The PPV and NPV values were 73.5% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions. The study revealed the advantage of devices using alternating sinusoidal current as a stimulus in the accuracy of diagnosing the onset of anesthesia. The main disadvantage of these methods is the weakness of the generated current, which leads to a distortion of the assessment of the pain sensitivity of the teeth.

1. Drum M., Reader A., Nusstein J., Fowler S. Successful pulpal anesthesia for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148(4):267-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2017.01.002.

2. Makeeva I M, Volkov A G, Prikuls V F, Dikopova N Zh, Arakelian M G, Makeeva M K, Ruchkin D N. The efficacy of electroodontodiagnosis by means of various types of current. Stomatologiya. 2018;97(6):34-37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat20189706134

3. Larentsova L. I. Patent No. 2224558 C2 Russian Federation, IPC A61N 1/32. Method for determining human sensory thresholds: No. 2002125471/14: Appl. 09/24/2002 : publ. February 27, 2004 / L. I. Larentsova, Yu. M. Maksimovsky, E. A. Estrov [and others]; applicant Closed Joint Stock Company "Geosoft Dent".

4. Rubin L.R. Electrodontodiagnostics. Moscow: Medicine; 1976. (In Russ).

5. Zyuzkov D.I. Electrical excitability of teeth in periodontitis. Dentistry. 2005;84(2):23-26. (In Russ).

6. Wong J.K. Adjuncts to anesthesia:Separating fact from fiction. J.Canad Dent Assoc. 2001;67:391-397.

7. Petrikas AJ et al. monograph in Russian. and English. Dental regional spongy (intraosseous) vascular anesthesia [Electronic resource]: monograph Russian / English A.Zh. Petrikas [i dr.]. Electron. Dan. – Tver, 2013 – . – Access mode: http://www.tvergma.ru – Title. from the screen. ISBN 978-5-8388-0123-4

8. Narhi M., Virtanen A., Kuhta J., Huopaniemi T. Electrical stimulation of teeth with a pulp tester in the cat. Scand J Dent Res. 1979; 87(1):32–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.1979.tb01937.x.

9. Petrikas A.Z., Letunovskaya S.A. Electric Pulp Testing in Children During Permanent Teeth Apexes Formation.. Inter Ped Dent Open Acc J. 2020;4(4):345-348, https://doi.org/10.32474/IPDOAJ.2020.04.000194.