ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2022
Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Combined Versus Supplementary Injection Techniques With Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Mandibular Molars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International endodontic journal · 2025Pooled it
- Articaine buccal infiltration for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: is it as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine? a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of combined pulp sensibility tests for detecting post-anesthetic pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Effect of intrapulpal cryoanesthesia on intraoperative pain during root canal treatment in mandibular molars: a double blinded randomized control trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Anaesthetic efficacy of intraligamentary injection compared to incisive nerve block using 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Pain Management in Mandibular Molars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Mechanisms, Clinical Efficacy and Current Evidence: A Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.
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.