ArticleBioinformation2021
Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine and lidocaine as dental pulp anaesthesia.
Article in Bioinformation, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Root canal therapy linked to pulpal diseases or trauma is common in modern dental care. The 2% Lidocaine which is considered as the gold standard has some drawbacks in pulpal anaesthesia. Ropivacaine has beneficial anaesthetic effects on pulpal anaesthesia. Therefore, it is of interest to compare and evaluate the pulpal aesthetic effect using 0.5% Ropivacaine and 2% Lidocaine in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. A double blinded randomized controlled clinical trial consisting of 110 lower molar and premolar tooth with irreversible pulpitis cases for root canal therapy were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A: 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and Group B: 0.5% ropivacaine. The pulp sensibility tests with heat test, cold test and electric pulp test were completed. The preoperative pain score was measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scale. The classical inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique was administered to all patients by a single operator. Subjects were asked for lip numbness and presence or absence of lip numbness. Postoperative pain scores were recorded during access opening and on placing files in the canal. There is no statistical difference between the groups during pre operative conditions. The mean pain scores within group A and group B is recorded. The difference was found to be statistically significant with p value ≤ 0.05. Significant difference between the mean values after and before the treatment is observed. However, there is no statistical significance between the mean pain scores between the access and pulp. The 0.5% Ropivacaine and 2% Lidocaine with epinephrine does not have any significant difference during access opening. However, 0.5% Ropivacaine groups were effective while placing the file in the canal. Thus, 0.5% Ropivacaine showed better results even though it was not statistically significant for further consideration in this context.
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.