Fig. 1

The patients reported a very low pain during the injection (mean 1,4, SD 2,1) and during the therapies (mean 1,7, SD 2,3). Post-operative pain was almost absent (mean 0,8, SD 1,3)

The WAND STA in the treatment of mandibular teeth
Fig. 2

174 patients out of 180 received traditional anesthesia in the recent past and, when they were asked about their preference, 143 of them (82%) stated they preferred STA to traditional anesthesia. The mean rate given from the patients to STA with respect to the traditional method was 7,9 (SD 2,8).

Fig. 3

From the clinician’s point of view, the average efficacy of the STA was 8,3, while the average patient compliance was 7,9. In 41 cases out of 180 it was necessary to provide additional anesthesia in order to have full disappearance of the pain. The anesthesia had a good efficacy, regardless of the injection site (buccal or lingual) selected.

Fig. 4

The statistics (Mann Whitney test, confidence interval 95%) confirmed that no significant difference existed between the tested injection sites and that no significant difference existed among the results obtained by the clinicians involved in the study.


In conclusion, the WAND STA was found to be effective in pain management in endo-restorative and surgical procedures of mandibular teeth, as reported by several studies published in the Literature. The finding of this study adds the detail that the machine is effective, regardless of the injection site (buccal or lingual) selected.
The difference between the anesthesia efficacy achieved by the clinicians involved in the study was practically absent.
The majority of patients was satisfied with the treatment received and declared to prefer the computerized anestesia to the conventional technique: this in concordance with the studies of Re et al, which also pointed out the interesting fact that the patients would pay more to receive computerized anesthesia. (Re, D; Del Fabbro, M; Karanxha, L; Augusti, G; Augusti, D; Fessi, S; Taschieri, S 2017)


Sharath Asokan P, Geetha Priya P, Baby John J, Praburajan V, Punithavathy R, Yogesh Kumar T. Behavioral response and pain perception to computer controlled local anesthetic delivery system and cartridge syringe. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2015;33(3):223-8.
Garret-Bernardin A, Cantile T, D'Antò V, Galanakis A, Fauxpoint G, Ferrazzano G, et al. Pain Experience and Behavior Management in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparison between Traditional Local Anesthesia and the Wand Computerized Delivery System. Pain Res Manag. 2017;2017:7941238.
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 syringe. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2012;16(2):207-12.
Mittal M, Kumar A, Srivastava D, Sharma P, Sharma S. Pain Perception: Computerized versus Traditional Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(5):470-4.
Kandiah P, Tahmassebi J. Comparing the onset of maxillary infiltration local anaesthesia and pain experience using the conventional technique vs. the Wand in children. Br Dent J. 2012;213(9):E15.
Re D, Del Fabbro M, Karanxha L, Augusti G, Augusti D, Fessi S, et al. Minimally-invasive dental anesthesia: Patient's preferences and analisys of the willingness-to-pay index. J Invest Clin Dent. 2017;00:e12275.