Trial reportAnesthesia progress2017
Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in a Primary Intraseptal Injection: A Prospective, Randomized Double-Blind Study.
Trial report in Anesthesia progress, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of supplemental intraseptal and buccal infiltration anesthesia in mandibular molars of patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Anesthetic efficacies of intrapapillary injection in comparison to inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular premolar extraction: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Assessing the Impact of Mandibular Molar Root Length on Success in Supplemental Intraligamentary Injection for Irreversible Pulpitis.Iranian endodontic journal · 2024Article
- Patient discomfort and intensity of intraseptal anesthesia of computer-controlled articaine/epinephrine delivery for scaling and root planing.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Efficacy of intraseptal anesthesia obtained by computer-controlled articaine with epinephrine delivery in scaling and root planing.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Anesthetic efficacies of buccal with palatal injection versus buccal with intra-septal injection in permanent maxillary first molars of pediatric patients.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2022Review
- Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
- How Successful is Supplemental Intraseptal and Buccal Infiltration Anaesthesia in the Mandibular Molars of Patients Undergoing Root Canal Treatment or Tooth Extraction?Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
- Does articaine, rather than prilocaine, increase the success rate of anaesthesia for extraction of maxillary teeth.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additional studies are needed to evaluate intraseptal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar. The purpose of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of a primary intraseptal injection of articaine and lidocaine, administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system, in asymptomatic mandibular first molars. Using a crossover design, 100 subjects randomly received intraseptal injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine, both with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at 2 separate appointments. Injections were given in the interdental papillae, mesial (0.7 mL) and distal (0.7 mL) to the first molar. An electric pulp tester was used to test for pulpal anesthesia. Pain of injection, postoperative pain, and pulse rate were also evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed. Anesthetic success rate for the mandibular first molar was 32% for articaine and 30% for lidocaine, with no statistically significant difference (p = .8689) between the two. No significant differences were found between formulations for pain of injection. The intraseptal injection did not cause a clinically meaningful increase in pulse rate. Postoperative pain decreased each day with no significant differences between formulations. In conclusion, a primary intraseptal injection does not achieve a high success rate of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar.
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.