ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
2% lidocaine versus 3% prilocaine for oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Pharmaceutical Equivalence of Lidocaine and Prilocaine Creams.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Rules of selection for a safe local anesthetic in dentistry.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Formulation and In Vivo Pain Assessment of a Novel Niosomal Lidocaine and Prilocaine in an Emulsion Gel (Emulgel) of Semisolid Palm Oil Base for Topical Drug Delivery.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
- Selection of the safest local anesthetic for dental treatment in medically compromised patients: A comprehensive review.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
- 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
- Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-six patients were included in the prilocaine 3% group, and 46 in the lidocaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Moreover, the pain of the injections was recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with "no pain" (0 mm) and "unbearable pain" (100 mm).
resultsThere were no significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated buccal, palatal mucosa, and tooth of patients in the lidocaine and prilocaine buccal infiltration groups (
conclusionsUsing 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for extractions of upper maxillary teeth produces similarly successful anesthesia. Clinically, prilocaine has slightly rapid onset of action, earlier buccal mucosa, hard palate, and teeth numbness. Prilocaine and lidocaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than palatal injection.
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.