Trial reportMedicine2017
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07013071 (The Effect of Different Vasoconstrictive Agents on Hemodynamics Among Patients Undergoing Simple Mandibular Exodontia), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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.
The Effect of Different Vasoconstrictive Agents on Hemodynamics Among Patients Undergoing Simple Mandibular Exodontia: A Triple-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 4% articaine with epinephrine in local anesthesia of maxillary molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Volume and effectiveness assessment of articain 4% versus mepivacaine 2% used in third molar surgery: randomized, double-blind, split-mouth controlled clinical trial.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Trial
- Investigate the hemodynamic alterations and anxiety state levels during the surgical disimpaction of mandibular third molar.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Adrenaline dilution in dental local anesthesia for patients with underlying disease.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells-Derived Exosomal miRNA-21-5p Inhibits Lidocaine-Induced Apoptosis in SH-SY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Review
- Safety and efficacy of lidocaine plus epinephrine on intraoperative bleeding in abdominal myomectomy: A double-blind clinical trial.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Novel Dimethylacetamide-Containing Formulation Improves Infraorbital Anaesthesia Efficacy in Rats with Periodontitis.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2020Article
- Comparative evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and hemostatic effect of 2% lidocaine with various concentrations of epinephrine.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars.
methodsSixty-five healthy participants underwent surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars in 2 separate visits while under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with different epinephrine concentration (1:80,000 or 1:200,000) in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Visual analog scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the 2 groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analog scale pain scores were obtained 2, 4, and 6 hours after administering an anesthetic. Onset and duration of analgesia, onset of pain, intraoperative bleeding, operator's and participant's overall satisfaction, drug dosage, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for the 2 groups.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in any measurements except hemodynamic factors (P >.05). Changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate following anesthetic administration were significantly greater in the group receiving 1:80,000 epinephrine than in that receiving 1:200,000 epinephrine (P ≤.01).
conclusionThe difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients.
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.