Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2022
Articaine use does not routinely eliminate the need for palatal injections for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized cross-over clinical trial.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 4% articaine with epinephrine in local anesthesia of maxillary molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Is it possible to extract primary maxillary molars without palatal injection?: a controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Review
- Evaluation of Intraligamentous and Intraosseous Computer-Controlled Anesthetic Delivery Systems in Pediatric Dentistry: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Children (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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine versus routine buccal and palatal injections of 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of maxillary primary molars.
methodsThirty healthy children aged 6-9 years old requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled into the trial. Randomization was performed in two steps. Routine buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered using 2% lidocaine in the control side. Four percent articaine was used for single buccal infiltration in the intervention side. WBFP scale (Wong-Baker FACES Pain scale) was employed for subjective assessment of pain. For objective evaluation of pain, FLACC scale (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) and physiological parameters of blood pressure and pulse rate were recorded.
resultsAnalyses did not show any significant differences in blood pressure, pulse rate, and FLACC scale between groups (P value > 0.05). However, statistically lower WBFP scores were observed in articaine group as compared to lidocaine group (P value < 0.05); the difference was less than one unit which is not clinically considerable.
conclusionSingle buccal infiltration of 4% articaine can be administered as an alternative for conventional infiltration of 2% lidocaine to avoid fear or uncooperative behavior of the child patient. However, the assessment of palatal tissue anesthesia is quite necessary before the procedure is initiated. In case of failure in achieving palatal anesthesia, a palatal injection should be given.
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.