ArticlePeerJ2021
Efficacy of 4% articaine
Article in PeerJ, 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus articaine in third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Intraseptal injection as an alternative for palatal infiltration in vital maxillary first permanent molars of 6- to 18-year-old patients: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Trial
- Success of Pulpal Anesthesia Following Buccal Infiltration of the Maxillary First Molar With 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.Anesthesia progress · 2023Trial
- A comparative clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of lignocaine 2% and articaine 4% for anesthesia of mandibular first molars with irreversible pulpitis.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- An update on articaine use in dentistry.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Article
- A Prospective Clinical Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Intra-Ligamentary Anesthetic Solutions in Mandibular Molars Diagnosed as Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis with Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the performance of 4% Articaine
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Open Gray were used to conduct a thorough literature search. A manual search of the reference lists of the publications found was also carried out. Two reviewers critically evaluated the papers for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction was done on the selected publications. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool and the Minors checklist were used to assess the quality of the selected studies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies, respectively. The RevMan software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data and subgroups according to the technique of anaesthetic solution delivery, as well as a sensitivity analysis (
resultsA total of twenty-six papers were included in the qualitative synthesis, with twenty-two of them being included in the meta-analysis. There were fifteen studies with a low potential for bias, three with a moderate potential for bias, and seven with a high potential for bias. The combined results of the 19 trials in the tooth level unit revealed that 4% articaine had a success rate 1.37 times greater than 2% lidocaine for mandibular teeth (RR, 1.37; 95% CI [1.17-1.62];
conclusionThe findings of this meta-analysis back up the claim that articaine is more effective than lidocaine in providing anaesthesia in patients with IP. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42020204606 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020204606).
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.