Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32158955›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2020

Clinical evaluation of efficacy of transcortical anesthesia for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial.

Esin Demir, Hanife Ataoglu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment of the effectiveness of intraosseous anaesthesia during restorative procedures on teeth affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation in children.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Esin DemirDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Selçuk University Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-7213
Hanife AtaogluDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Selçuk University Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3555-0064
Selçuk University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to compare the pain levels during anesthesia and the efficacy of the QuickSleeper intraosseous (IO) injection system and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

methodsThis prospective randomized clinical trial included 30 patients (16 women, 14 men) with bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibular third molars. Thirty subjects randomly received either the IO injection or conventional IANB at two successive appointments. A split-mouth design was used in which each patient underwent treatment of a tooth with one of the techniques and treatment of the homologous contralateral tooth with the other technique. The subjects received 1.8 mL of 2% articaine. Subjects' demographic data, pain levels during anesthesia induction, tooth extractions, and mouth opening on postoperative first, third, and seventh days were recorded. Pain assessment ratings were recorded using the 100-mm visual analog scale. The latency and duration of the anesthetic effect, complications, and operation duration were also analyzed in this study. The duration of anesthetic effect was considered using an electric pulp test and by probing the soft tissue with an explorer.

resultsThirty patients aged between 18 and 47 years (mean age, 25 years) were included in this study. The IO injection was significantly less painful with lesser soft tissue numbness and quicker onset of anesthesia and lingual mucosa anesthesia with single needle penetration than conventional IANB. Moreover, 19 out of 30 patients (63%) preferred transcortical anesthesia. Mouth opening on postoperative first day was significantly better with intraosseous injection than with conventional IANB (P = 0.013).

conclusionThe IO anesthetic system is a good alternative to IANB for extraction of the third molar with less pain during anesthesia induction and sufficient depth of anesthesia for the surgical procedure.

Indexed as

Impacted ToothIntraosseousQuickSleeperTranscortical Anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID32158955
PMCPMC7054070
OpenAlexW3009104397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.