SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020
Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus articaine in third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjunct to Lignocaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Extraction of Mandibular Third Molar-A Split-Mouth Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Trial
- Analgesic effect of a lidocaine-ropivacaine mixture for extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2023Trial
- Expert consensus on the management of third molar health.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Analgesic Efficacy of Magnesium in Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Challenges in Developing an Effective Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Guide.Anesthesia progress · 2025Article
- Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and other orofacial pain: overcoming challenges in diagnosis and management.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
- Use of Phentolamine Mesylate in Implant Surgery: Analysis of Adverse Effects and Haemodynamic Changes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Clonidine versus Adrenaline as an Adjunct to Lignocaine on Haemodynamic Parameters during Nerve Block for Third Molar Surgical Removal - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.