Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36246033›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2022

Buffered articaine infiltration for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized controlled study.

Parag Dhake, Devendra Nagpal, Purva Chaudhari, Gagandeep Lamba, Kavita Hotwani, Prabhat Singh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Parag DhakeDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5656-6308
Devendra NagpalDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2290-2745
Purva ChaudhariDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7742-9249
Gagandeep LambaDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-3709
Kavita HotwaniDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2280-9842
Prabhat SinghDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India.
ACPM Dental College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO Methods: Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe. Results: The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration. Conclusion: Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.

Indexed as

ArticaineBuffersLocal InfiltrationPrimary MolarsTooth Extraction

Identifiers

PMID36246033
PMCPMC9536944
OpenAlexW4306670032

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.