ArticleHead & face medicine2015
Evaluation of the anesthetic effect of epinephrine-free articaine and mepivacaine through quantitative sensory testing.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative and qualitative assessment of sensory changes induced by local anesthetics block of two different trigeminal nerve branches.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Trial
- An Updated Digital Approach to Regional Anesthesia: A Pilot Study on Computer-Guided Maxillary Nerve Block via the Greater Palatine Canal.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
- Unilateral Vision Loss after a Dental Visit.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLong lasting anesthesia of the soft tissue beyond the dental treatment affects patients in daily routine. Therefore a sophisticated local anesthesia is needed. The purpose of this study was an evaluation of the clinical use of epinephrine-free local anesthetic solutions in routine short-time dental treatments. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a prospective, single-blind, non-randomized and controlled clinical trial, 31 patients (16 male, 15 female patients) undergoing short-time dental treatment under local anesthesia (plain solutions of articaine 4% and mepivacaine 3%) in area of maxillary canine were tested with quantitative sensory testing QST. Paired-Wilcoxon-testing (signed-rank-test) and Mc Nemar tests have been used for statistical results.
resultsSignificant differences in all tested parameters to the time of measurements were found. Mepivacaine showed a significantly stronger impact for the whole period of measurement (128 min) on thermal and mechanical test parameters and to the associated nerve fibers.
conclusionPlain articaine shows a faster onset of action associated with a shorter time of activity in comparison to plain mepivacaine. In addition to this articaine shows a significant low-graded effect on the tested nerve-fibers and therefore a least affected anesthesia to the patient. The clinical use of an epinephrine-free anesthetic solution can be stated as possible option in short dental routine treatments to the frequently used vasoconstrictor containing local anesthetics. Patients may benefit from shorter numbness.
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.