Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27212774›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine during the surgical removal of the third molar: A comparative prospective study.

Nikil Kumar Jain, Reena Rachel John

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: A review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nikil Kumar JainDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Reena Rachel JohnDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vinayaka Missions Sankarachariyar Dental College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
KIIT University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe study aimed at evaluating the clinical efficacy of articaine over lidocaine in the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

objectiveThe objectives were to compare the onset of anesthesia, pain during injection, during the procedure and after the procedure, compare the duration of anesthesia, and need for re-anesthesia. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective study was conducted on 70 subjects planned for surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Subjects were randomly administered one of two local anesthetics. The anesthetic agent used was unknown for the patient and the observer who performed the measurements.

resultsThe differences in latency with 4% articaine (56.57 ± 9.8 s) and with 2% lignocaine (88.26 ± 12.87 s), pain during procedure for articaine 1.31 ± 0.87 and for lignocaine 2.60 ± 1.06, pain after procedure was 0.89 ± 0.58 for articaine and 1.31 ± 1.05 for lignocaine, and mean duration of anesthetic effect for articaine was 231 ± 57.15 min and 174.80 ± 37.02 min for lignocaine, which was statistically significant. For re-anesthesia, 6 out of 35 patients needed re-anesthesia at the frequency of 8.57% for articaine and 13 out of 35 patients needed re-anesthesia at a frequency of 18.57% for lignocaine.

conclusionThe results proved that articaine had a significant faster onset of action and longer duration of action when compared to lignocaine. Hence, the pain experienced by the patients during and after the surgical procedure was significantly less. The study was concluded that articaine is a safe alternative to lignocaine, which is potent and effective in minor surgical procedures such as removal of mandibular third molars.

Indexed as

Articaine hydrochlorideimpacted third molarslignocaine hydrochloridelocal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID27212774
PMCPMC4864681
OpenAlexW2344783278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.