Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2012
Articaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: a randomized clinical study.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy comparison of articaine versus lidocaine in dental anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of anesthetic solutions for pain control in lower third molar extraction surgeries: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Pooled it
- Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Pooled it
- Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Anesthetic Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Articaine versus Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Molar Teeth.Anesthesia progress · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Plasma variations in stress markers: clinical trial of two anesthetics used in regional block in the extraction of impacted inferior third molars.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2014Trial
- Why choose articaine over lidocaine for the removal of third molars? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Review
- 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine for Surgical Removal of Third Molar by Mandibular Nerve Block: A Randomized Clinical Trial for Efficacy and Safety.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2019Article
- A Comparative Study Between Bupivacaine with Adrenaline and Carbonated Bupivacaine with Adrenaline for Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2016Article
- Articaine for surgical removal of impacted third molar; a comparison with lignocaine.Journal of international oral health : JIOH · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePain reduction has been the subject of continuous research in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery since postoperative pain with ranging of intensity and duration may affects the patient submitted in an oral surgical procedure. The aim of present study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness between two different anesthetic solutions (articaine and lidocaine) in third molar surgery. STUDY
designA prospective, randomized and clinical study with patients submitted to third molar surgery at two distinct times. The visual analogue scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the analgesic consumption record were used to measure the pain after each surgical time.
resultsDuration of surgery, latency, the amount of anesthetic used and analgesic consumption showed clinical differences with highlights of articaine, though statistical significance was not observed (P<0.05). The pain scores indicated similar anesthetic efficacy with both solutions.
conclusionIn the present study no significant differences were observed between lidocaine and articaine in the control of postoperative pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.