ArticleBMC oral health2020
The success of using 2% lidocaine in pain removal during extraction of mandibular premolars: a prospective clinical study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Review
- Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic effectiveness of a buccal infiltration technique combined with local massage (using 2% lidocaine) in the extraction of mandibular premolars to be utilized as an alternative to the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block.
methodsPatients eligible included any subject with a clinical indication for tooth extraction of the mandibular 1st or 2nd premolars. All patients were anesthetized buccally by local infiltration technique followed by an external pressure applied for 1 min directly over the injection area. In each case, another local injection was given lingually. All operations were started at approximately 5 min after the buccal injection. The collected data included age, gender, pain perception and its intensity during treatment at three checkpoints, apical tenderness, and the type of extraction. Any associated complications or difficulties were also recorded. Then the results were analyzed and interpreted using appropriate statistical tests. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsA total of 247 cases (1st premolar, n = 119; 2nd premolar, n = 128), predominantly male, were included. In 95% of study sample, the patients were satisfied with the dental extraction without any pain. However, in 5% of cases, pain was reported at the stage of tooth removal. Apical tenderness was found to be present in 11% of the total cases. Three teeth required surgical removal. Upon analysis, no significant differences in the success rates were detected between the 2 premolar groups or amongst the various age groups. Minor and transient side effects were reported in this study.
conclusionThe technique is simple and effective as well. It might be considered as an alternative anesthetic injection to the inferior alveolar nerve block for dental extraction of the mandibular premolars.
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.