ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2021
2.5% EMLA Versus 2% Lignocaine with Adrenaline Injection in Small Oral Mucosal Biopsies: A Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TRIAL
designThe study was designed as an open label randomized comparative parallel group design with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
methodsAll consecutive patients reporting for small biopsies (incisional or excisional) who gave written informed consent were included in the study between October 2018 and October 2019. They were randomized into two groups, Group A and Group B both receiving intervention in the form of 2.5% EMLA cream and 2% Lignocaine with 1:80,000 Adrenaline injection respectively, to anaesthetise tissue for small mucosal biopsies in the oral cavity.
resultsEMLA was found to be as effective as lignocaine infiltration with a completely painless application and higher satisfaction for overall comfort during procedure. The duration required to achieve anaesthesia was however more. A particular subgroup of pathology was found to be completely resistant to anaesthesia by EMLA.
conclusionWe recommend the use of EMLA as a sole anaesthetic in small mucosal biopsies and shavings in all patients. We suggest it as a higher and first line recommendation for anaesthesia in needle phobic patients and children.
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.