ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2020
United Kingdom pediatric dentistry specialist views on the administration of articaine in children.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Pain Response and Clinical Efficacy of an Articaine Mucoadhesive Patch among 6-12-year-old Children during Local Anesthetic Injection and Subgingival Tooth Preparation: A Double-blind Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- [Clinical study on hemodynamics and analgesic effect of local infiltration anesthesia in the treatment of severe early childhood caries under general anesthesia].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Alveolar Nerve Block with 2% Lidocaine-Epinephrine and 4% Articaine-Epinephrine Buccal Infiltration in Mandibular Premolar and Molar Region in Children: A Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Swiss paediatric dentists' preferences and experience on the use of articaine and other local/topical anaesthetics.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Article
- The Use of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Dentistry: A Survey of Specialists' Current Practices in Children and Attitudes in Relation to Articaine.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Articaine: dental practitioner use, basis of perception and evidence-based dentistry-a cross-sectional study.BDJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Inferior alveolar nerve block: is articaine better than lidocaine?British dental journal · 2021Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK.
methodsA literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed.
resultsSixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients.
conclusionsArticaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.
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.