Trial reportAnesthesia progress2019
Anesthetic Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Articaine versus Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Molar Teeth.
Trial report in Anesthesia progress, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06161714 (The Effectiveness of Buccal Infiltration Only Using Articaine for Routine Exodontia of Mandibular Molar), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 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.
The Effectiveness of Buccal Infiltration Only Using Articaine for Routine Exodontia of Mandibular Molar: A Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2021Pooled it
- Is it possible to extract primary maxillary molars without palatal injection?: a controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Comparison of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection and buccal infiltration as single-injection anesthetic techniques for orthodontic extraction of maxillary first premolars: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration and Intraligamentary Injection with 4% Articaine in Primary Molars:International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Articaine versus Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents Using Buccal Infiltration Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Premolars.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- The efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
- Why choose articaine over lidocaine for the removal of third molars? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Review
- Article
- Efficacy of intraseptal anesthesia obtained by computer-controlled articaine with epinephrine delivery in scaling and root planing.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Two Different Behavior Modification Techniques for Anxiety Reduction in Children.Cureus · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Effects of Articaine and Lidocaine Anesthetics on Blood Pressure after Maxillary Infiltration Technique: A Triple-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Post-operative discomforts in children after extraction of primary teeth.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Observational
- Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2020Review
- A Randomized Controlled Trial: Comparison of 4% Articaine versus 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery under Supraclavicular Block.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2020Article
- Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
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
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine, both containing epinephrine, using a single buccal infiltration for extraction of primary molars.A total of 100 children requiring primary molar extraction received buccal infiltration using either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, both with epinephrine, with 50 children in each group. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain Scale (FPS) was used to evaluate pain perception subjectively. The heart rate and the blood pressure values were assessed objectively as an indirect measure of physiological pain perception. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for comparing mean pain scores, heart rate, and blood pressure in both the groups. Single buccal infiltration with articaine was sufficient for achieving palatal or lingual anesthesia in all the children receiving it while all children in the lidocaine group required supplemental anesthesia. The mean FPS value was found to be higher in lidocaine group and was statistically significant. The mean heart rate recorded during the intervention was less than the mean baseline values in the articaine group, which was found to be statistically significant. For pediatric patients age 7 to 12 years, single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is more effective compared to 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for primarly molar extraction.
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.