Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32833132›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020

Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Fan Yang, Yuxuan Gao, Lan Zhang, Bo Zheng, Liu Wang, Huan Sun, Dingming Huang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06644950 (Efficacy and Safety of Administration of Different Doses of 4% Articaine), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT06644950 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Administration of Different Doses of 4% Articaine (1:100,000 Epinephrine) Using the Lower Dental Nerve Block Technique for Lower Third Molar Extraction. A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BarcelonaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled110ConditionsTooth Extraction Status Nos, Anesthesia, LocalArmsEfficacy and safety of administering 1 or two cartridges of anesthesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Expert consensus on the management of third molar health.International journal of oral science · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fan YangState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yuxuan GaoState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Lan ZhangState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Bo ZhengState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Liu WangState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Huan SunDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. sun911027@163.com.
Dingming HuangState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. dingminghuang@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-5729
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPain management for the extraction of the mandibular third molar is a challenge as compelling evidence in comparative anaesthetics is currently lacking. MATERIALS AND

methodsThorough literature searches took place in PubMed, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, and CNKI. Thirty-three trials were meta-analysed using a Bayesian statistical approach within the random-effects model. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was performed to determine the overall quality of evidence across all comparisons.

resultsIn terms of success rate, an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was less effective than a combined injection of buccal infiltration (BI) and lingual infiltration (LI) with a 4% articaine (RR = 0.85 [0.75, 0.96], P = 0.611). According to visual analogue scale (VAS), 2% lidocaine-IANB with epinephrine caused higher VAS scores than 4% articaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = 0.84 [0.28, 1.40], P = 0.057), whereas 0.5% levobupivacaine-IANB showed lower scores than 2% lidocaine-IANB (MD = - 1.62 [- 2.97, - 0.28], P = 0.045). Also, 2% lidocaine-IANB with epinephrine presented longer latency than both 4% articaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = 39.44 [16.97, 61.90], P < 0.001) and 4% articaine-BI + LI with epinephrine (MD = 164.41 [16.23, 312.58], P < 0.001); 4% articaine-IANB with epinephrine produced shorter latency than 0.5% bupivacaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = - 42.92 [- 70.28, - 15.56], P = 0.106); 0.75% ropivacaine-IANB caused shorter onset of action compared with 2% lidocaine-IANB (MD = - 40.88 [- 65.50, - 16.26], P < 0.001). In addition, 2% lidocaine-IANB with epinephrine produced significantly shorter duration than both 4% articaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = - 47.33 [- 57.88, - 36.77], P = 0.265) and 2% mepivacaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = - 10.01 [- 19.59, - 0.44], P = 0.769). The duration of action triggered by 4% articaine-IANB with epinephrine was shorter compared with 0.5% bupivacaine-IANB with epinephrine (MD = - 64.17 [- 74.65, - 53.69], P = 0.926). Both 0.5% levobupivacaine-IANB and 0.75% ropivacaine-IANB produced longer duration of action than 2% lidocaine-IANB (MD = 333.70 [267.33, 400.07], P < 0.001) and (MD = 288.01 [287.67, 288.34], P = 0.634, respectively).

conclusionsThe network meta-analysis demonstrated that the intraosseous injection of 4% articaine with epinephrine had the most noteworthy success rate. However, the combination of BI and LI of 4% articaine with epinephrine, and IANB of 0.5% bupivacaine were, according to a VAS, the most effective. It should be noted that a rapid onset of action was produced by BI combined with LI of 4% articaine with epinephrine and IANB of 2% mepivacaine with epinephrine, while the most prolonged duration of action was generated by IANB of 0.5% levobupivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For a better understanding of local anaesthesia for the extraction of the third molar, our study was aimed to provide evidence to guide better dental practices in pain management for clinicians.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalNerve BlockPulpitisAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalBayes TheoremCarticaineDouble-Blind MethodHumansLidocaineMandibular NerveMolar, ThirdAnesthetics, LocalCarticaineLidocaineEvidence-based medicineLocal anaestheticsNetwork meta-analysisOperative dentistryPain managementTooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID32833132
OpenAlexW3081051897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.