Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32221489›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020

How should we anaesthetise painful mandibular premolars?

Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão, Kayvon Javid

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros MourãoDepartment of Oral Surgery, Dentistry School, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; South Bay Dental Institute, California, USA.
Kayvon JavidSouth Bay Dental Institute, California, USA.
Bay Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Design Randomised clinical trialStudy population The present study evaluated patients of different genders aged between 18-65 years old. The study design and the language of the consent form were approved by the Ethics Committee at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) (approval code: IR.TUMS.REC.1394.1906). The study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials.Data Analysis The evaluation was performed using the Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP VAS) and complemented with the electrical pulp test accuracy to determine the success of anaesthesia Results In this study, the success rate was 93.8% (95% CI 79.19-99.23) for mental/incisive nerve block (MINB), and 81.2% (95% CI 63.56-92.79) for inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The difference was not significant (p = 0.26). An interesting result was the combination of both techniques was 100% successful in the failed cases (2 in MINB group; 6 in IANB group).Conclusions In conclusion, MINB using 4% Articaine showed a similar success rate as IANB using 4% Articaine in local anaesthesia for mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis. The beginning of anaesthesia was faster for MINB, and the injection was painless. The post-injection pain for MINB was higher than for IANB. Both techniques showed similar efficacy.

Indexed as

Nerve BlockPulpitisAdolescentAdultAgedAnesthetics, LocalBicuspidCarticaineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIranMaleMandibular NerveMiddle AgedPainAnesthetics, LocalCarticaine

Identifiers

PMID32221489
OpenAlexW3013187198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.