ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2019
An
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided external oblique intercostal plane block versus thoracic erector spinae block for post-thoracotomy pain: A randomised double-blinded non-inferior clinical study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Pre-Clinical Assessment of Bupivacaine-Loaded Poly(ester urea) Thin Films for Controlled Drug Release and Effective Pain Management After Surgery.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
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
backgroundPain is an unpleasant sensation ranging from mild localized discomfort to agony and is one of the most commonly experienced symptoms in oral surgery. Usually, local anesthetic agents and analgesics are used for pain control in oral surgical procedures. Local anesthetic agents including lignocaine and bupivacaine are routinely used in varying concentrations. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in infraorbital nerve block.
methodsForty-one patients undergoing bilateral maxillary orthodontic extraction received 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 41) on one side and 0.25% bupivacaine (n = 41) on the other side at an interval of 7 d. The parameters evaluated for both the bupivacaine concentrations were onset of action, pain during procedure (visual analog scale score [VAS]), and duration of action. The results were noted, tabulated, and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
resultsThe onset of action of 0.5% bupivacaine was quicker than that of 0.25% bupivacaine, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.306). No significant difference was found between the solutions for VAS scores (P = 0.221) scores and duration of action (P = 0.662).
conclusionThere was no significant difference between 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of onset of action, pain during procedure, and duration of action. The use of 0.25% bupivacaine is recommended.
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.