Trial reportBritish dental journal2020
Comparison of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration after inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
Trial report in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Combined Versus Supplementary Injection Techniques With Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Mandibular Molars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International endodontic journal · 2025Pooled it
- Effective anaesthesia when treating teeth affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Articaine buccal infiltration for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: is it as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine? a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Trial
- Pain Management in Mandibular Molars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Mechanisms, Clinical Efficacy and Current Evidence: A Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of local anesthesia approaches for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Efficacy of 4% articainePeerJ · 2021Article
- Efficacy of articaine versus mepivacaine administered as different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis: AnJournal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims To compare the anaesthetic efficacy of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration (BI) following lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.Materials and methods Patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and unsuccessful IANB were randomly assigned to three groups: articaine group (n = 52), lidocaine group (n = 52) and mepivacaine group (n = 52). They were instructed to rate the pain experienced at four phases (before the injection, after IANB, after BI and during endodontic access) on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS). Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth with no pain or mild pain (VAS rating ≤54 mm) after BI.Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that articaine was associated with a higher success rate compared with lidocaine (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.35-11.27; P = 0.02) and mepivacaine (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.24-9.75; P = 0.01), after controlling for age, gender and initial pain. VAS ratings were significantly lower in the articaine group compared with those in the lidocaine group and mepivacaine group after BI and during endodontic access (P <0.01).Conclusion Articaine as a supplemental BI following IANB is a more successful anaesthetic agent in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared with lidocaine and mepivacaine.
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.