SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021
Evaluation of different mandibular blocks for the removal of lower third molars: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal needle characteristics for classical inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia: a systematic review.Head & face medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Randomized clinical trial on effectiveness of modified Akinosi technique in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis during endodontic therapy.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Finite-Element Computer Modeling of Spatial Displacement of the Pterygoid Venous Plexus During Mandibular Movements.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the efficacy and number of side effects for the Gow-Gates mandibular block (GGMB) and Vazirani-Akinosi mandibular block (VAMB) compared to inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients requiring lower third molar (L3M) extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was performed in three electronic databases and complemented with a manual search. The inclusion criteria were randomised clinical trials in healthy patients who underwent at least one L3M extraction. Screening and article selection were carried out by two independent reviewers. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed for the success rate, number of positive aspirations, and onset time outcomes.
resultsSix randomised clinical trials were included out of the 367 potentially eligible papers. No significant differences were found in terms of success rate using GGMB (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.18; P = 0.48) nor VAMB (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; P = 0.41). The VAMB group exhibited a lower number of positive aspirations than the IANB group (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; P = 0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between the GGMB and IANB groups (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.13 to 8.78; P = 0.96). The delayed onset was even longer in GGMB (mean difference [MD] 3.32 min; 95% CI 1.98 to 4.66; P < 0.001) and VAMB (MD 0.90 min; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.43; P = 0.0001) than IANB.
conclusionsGGMB and VAMB seem to be effective and safe anaesthetic techniques for the removal of L3M, but these blocks exhibited a more delayed onset time than IANB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: GGMB and VAMB are safe and effective anaesthetic techniques for the removal of L3M. However, IANB can still be considered the first option since GGMB and VAMB exhibited more delayed onset times and variable buccal nerve anaesthesia.
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.