ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020
How should we anaesthetise painful mandibular premolars?
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.