Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Anesthetic efficacies of intrapapillary injection in comparison to inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular premolar extraction: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIntrapapillary injection (IPI) has been suggested to improve pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth and to avoid complications from inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study aimed to determine and compare clinical efficacies and prostaglandin E MATERIALS AND
methodsIANB was randomly selected for mandibular premolar anesthesia on one side of 40 patients, whereas IPI was locally administered to the contralateral premolar. Pulpal anesthesia, pain during injection and extraction, patients' satisfaction, and complications were assessed from 30 patients. Gingival crevicular fluid from ten patients was collected for PGE
resultsOf 30 patients, 18 preferred IPI after injection due to significantly faster mean onset of pulpal anesthesia (p < 0.001) and lower mean score of injection pain (p = 0.017) than IANB, but 21 preferred IANB instead after extraction due to less postoperative pain, consistent with the significantly lower median PGE
conclusionsThe anesthetic efficacies of IPI for mandibular premolar extraction are comparable to those of IANB. However, postoperative pain and local complications at the IPI site should be considered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IPI may be used for dental procedures that require only a short anesthetic duration to avoid failure of pulpal anesthesia, complications, and discomfort from IANB.
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.