Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2020
Comparison of the efficacy of a standard inferior alveolar nerve block versus articaine infiltration for invasive dental treatment in permanent mandibular molars in children: a pilot study.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 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
- Comparison of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 4% articaine with epinephrine in local anesthesia of maxillary molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration and Intraligamentary Injection with 4% Articaine in Primary Molars:International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Intraosseous Local Anesthesia (QuickSleeper 5) During Pulpotomy and Stainless Steel Crown Placement on Mandibular Primary Molars: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
- Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children.
methodsPatients aged 8-15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment.
resultsTwenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment.
conclusionThis study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.
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.