Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2018
Is amalgamated ligno-bupivacaine an answer to complicated minor oral surgical anesthesia? A randomized split-mouth double-blind clinical trial.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Evaluation of local anesthetic blockade in cats undergoing castration in a high-quality, high-volume spay/neuter setting: a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- AnJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to find a suitable anesthetic combination for complicated and protracted minor oral surgical procedures.
methodsFifty patients with bilaterally impacted deep-seated mandibular third molars were included in this study and randomly divided on the basis of anesthetic used into two groups. Group A received 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline while in group B, amalgamated mixture of 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was used. The onset time, duration of anesthetic effect, supplementary injections, pain (during local anesthetic deposition, intra and postoperatively), and postoperative analgesia were the study parameters. Chi-square and unpaired t tests were used to compare means.
resultsThe onset time in both the groups was comparable and showed statistically significant difference between the duration of anesthetic effect with notable requirement of supplemental anesthetic injections in group A (54%) (p < 0.05). Pain scores also revealed a statistically significant intergroup difference (p < 0.05). Requirement of postoperative analgesics was delayed in group B.
conclusionsThe amalgamated mixture of lignocaine and bupivacaine had equivocally rational onset and provided a more profound and in-depth anesthesia especially in complicated and protracted minor oral surgical procedures. Though this mixture is widely used in other surgical fields, its efficacy still remains unexploited and undocumented in oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29362928What 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.