ArticleJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
Article in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Articaine provides a faster onset and longer duration of analgesia at lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine in third molar extractions.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Trial
- 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
- Anesthetic effect of articaine and lidocaine in tooth extraction.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Anaesthetics reduce the viability of adipose-derived stem cells.Adipocyte · 2024Article
- Rules of selection for a safe local anesthetic in dentistry.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparative Preclinical Study of Lidocaine and Mepivacaine in Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
- Management of an emergency tooth extraction in diabetic patients on the dental chair.The Saudi dental journal · 2020Review
- Does articaine, rather than prilocaine, increase the success rate of anaesthesia for extraction of maxillary teeth.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
- 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
- Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
- Selection of the safest local anesthetic for dental treatment in medically compromised patients: A comprehensive review.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions. MATERIAL AND
methodsNinety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.
resultsIn this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03).
conclusionsArticaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.
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.