ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2021
Comparative Analysis of Different Local Anesthetic Solutions Available in Market: An In Vitro and Clinical Study.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of the Lidocaine in the Perioperative Period.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare various commercially available local anesthetic solutions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 150 commercially available local anesthetic cartridges of similar composition (2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000) were randomly collected and divided into 3 groups. The designations of groups were selected from their product names such that each group consisted of 60 cartridges. Group S (Septodont, France) Group M (Medicaine, Korea) and Group H (HD-Caine, Pakistan). The samples were divided into five sub-groups, each consisting of 10 cartridges from each group to investigate each parameter.
resultsThe acquired data was statistically analyzed and compared (using SPSS version 12). Compositional analysis revealed a non-significant (P>0.05) difference when the three Groups were compared with standard lidocaine and epinephrine solutions. The mean pH values of samples from group S, M, and H respectively fell within the range of pH values of commercially available solutions. Non-significant difference in EPT values of Group S and H was found when efficacy was compared (
conclusionWithin the limitations of these investigations, it appears that the properties of different manufacturers fall within the recommended ranges as mentioned in literature and do not appear to be statistically different in the variables we have tested.
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.