Trial reportPeerJ2022
Evaluation of pulpal anesthesia and injection pain using IANB with pre-heated, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis-a randomized clinical study.
Trial report in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of intrapulpal cryoanesthesia on intraoperative pain during root canal treatment in mandibular molars: a double blinded randomized control trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Pain Management in Mandibular Molars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Mechanisms, Clinical Efficacy and Current Evidence: A Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 2026Review
- Articaine Needle - Free Anesthesia Vs Conventional Anesthesia in Root Canal Treatment of Irreversible Pulpitis in Permanent Teeth: A Prospective Study on Anesthetic Efficacy and Effects on Pain.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the pain at site, onset of action, duration and anesthetic efficacy of conventional, buffered lidocaine, and precooled lidocaine with intraoral cryotherapy application in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A clinical study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Article
- Buffered versus Non-buffered Local Anaesthesia in Minor Oral Surgery - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of 2% lignocaine is reduced in a hot tooth. Local aesthetic agents can be preheated and buffered to increase their effectiveness. The present investigation was carried out due to limited information concerning adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth. Methods: A total of 252 individuals were included in the clinical trial in accordance with the selection criteria only after clinical study was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2020/09/027796). Scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and electric pulp test (EPT) on a 1-10 scale were recorded prior to the commencement of therapy. In this double-blinded study, patients were randomly divided by a co-investigator using computer randomisation (www.randomizer.org) into three groups, group A: inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with 2% lignocaine preheated at 42 °C (injected at 37 °C) ( Results: Preheated, Buffered, and conventional 2% lignocaine showed statistically significant reduction in intraoperative pain ( Conclusions: Warm and buffered local anaesthetic (LA) were effective in reducing intraoperative discomfort than conventional LA. Preheated local anesthetics caused the least pain, followed by buffered local anesthetics, while conventional local anesthetics caused the most pain.
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.