Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34395897›Full record

ReviewJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2021

Anesthetic efficacy of primary and supplemental buccal/lingual infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alpa Gupta, Aarushi Sahai, Vivek Aggarwal, Namrata Mehta, Dax Abraham, Sucheta Jala, Arundeep Singh

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alpa GuptaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2834-0608
Aarushi SahaiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7519-9339
Vivek AggarwalDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-4554
Namrata MehtaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4836-524X
Dax AbrahamDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6870-6689
Sucheta JalaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9680-3147
Arundeep SinghDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Racha Dental College, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2342-9486
Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies · INJamia Millia Islamia · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was "What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?" We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34). These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L'Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.

Indexed as

Irreversible PulpitisLocal AnesthesiaMandibular Molars

Identifiers

PMID34395897
PMCPMC8349668
OpenAlexW3191522590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.