Ex vivo study demonstrates stable kinematics and tunable soft-tissue penetration with gas-driven jet injectors, suggesting potential for customizable dental anesthesia.
Needle-free jet injectors are a promising alternative to conventional dental needles, particularly for patients with injection-related fear. However, the actuation mechanism can substantially affect jet formation, delivery consistency, and tissue penetration. This study compared portable gas-driven jet injectors with a conventional spring-driven device and evaluated whether jet velocity could be used to modulate penetration behavior in soft tissue. Four gas-driven injectors with different inlet-side restriction settings were compared with a spring-driven comparator. High-speed imaging was used to quantify piston motion, flow rate, and jet velocity. Soft-tissue penetration was assessed in ex vivo chicken breast using a radiopaque silver nitrate tracer and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Penetration volume, maximum depth, maximum cross-sectional area, depth of maximum area, and average cross-sectional area were analyzed. The gas-driven injectors showed smooth piston advancement, quasi-steady jet profiles, and complete discharge, whereas the spring-driven comparator showed an impulsive early peak, recoil, fan-spray tendency, and incomplete discharge. Mean jet velocity exceeded 13 m/s in all gas-driven groups but was 2.40 m/s in the spring-driven group despite a much higher peak velocity. Micro-CT showed no significant between-group difference in detectable tracer volume. Increasing jet velocity in the gas-driven groups was associated with deeper and narrower penetration tracts, whereas lower jet velocities produced shallower and broader dispersion. Gas-driven needle-free injection provided more stable kinematics and more controllable penetration geometry than the spring-driven comparator under the present ex vivo conditions. Velocity-based regulation may enable procedure- and site-specific optimization of needle-free dental local anesthesia, although clinical validation in intraoral tissues is still required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: