ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2020
Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of articaine in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplications following impacted third molar surgery significantly affect patients' quality of life during the immediate postoperative period. This study aimed to achieve the proper anesthesia method by comparing the effect of the application of lidocaine alone with the application of lidocaine and articaine simultaneously in reducing the complications during and following impacted mandibular third molar surgery.
methodsThe study design was a split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted on 13 patients (26 samples) referred for elective surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar with similar difficulty on both sides. Each patient underwent similar surgical procedures on two separate appointments. Each patient randomly received 2% lidocaine for conventional inferior alveolar nerve block and 4% articaine for local infiltration before the surgery on one side (group A) and 2% lidocaine alone (for both block anesthesia and infiltration) before the surgery on the other side (group B). Intraoperative and postoperative variables for both groups were established and statistically analyzed.
resultsThe findings showed that pain on the first day after surgery in group A was significantly lower than that in group B. The patients in group A mentioned experiencing less discomfort following the surgery. The increased horizontal swelling on the first and third days following surgery and oblique swelling on the seventh day in patients in group B were statistically significant.
conclusionChoosing an appropriate anesthetic drug for oral surgery, specifically impacted third molar surgery, is dependent on the clinician's opinion, however; it seems that the combination of lidocaine and articaine may control the patient's pain significantly better than lidocaine alone.
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.