ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2021
Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine compared to routine inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is it possible to extract primary maxillary molars without palatal injection?: a controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Effect of cryoanaesthesia on pain during intraoral anaesthetic puncture in children: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- An update on articaine use in dentistry.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration and Intraligamentary Injection with 4% Articaine in Primary Molars:International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine with 24-Gauge Needle in Buccal Nerve Block Compared to 2% Lignocaine with 20-Gauge Needle in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Children with Dentoalveolar Abscess.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- A Comparative Evaluation of Pain Experience and Time of Onset of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block among Pediatric Population: A Clinical Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars.
methodsThe present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception.
resultsThe independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.
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.