ArticleCureus2022
A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Anesthetic Efficacy of Buffered Versus Non-buffered 2% Lidocaine During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-Stratified Use of Topical and Infiltrative Local Anesthetics in High-Risk Dermatologic Surgery.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Evaluating Pain, Onset of Action, Duration, and Anesthetic Efficacy of Conventional and Buffered Lidocaine in Infiltration Anesthesia: A Comparative Clinical Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Evaluating Efficiency of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine for Hypotensive Anesthesia in ENT Operations.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Remineralizing Efficacy of Grape Seed Extract vs Sodium Fluoride on Surface and Subsurface Enamel Lesions: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Antibiotic Versus Probiotics as Adjuncts to Mechanical Debridement for the Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Comparative Study on Recovery and Post-Operative Analgesic Efficacy from Fentanyl- Versus Dexmedetomidine-Based Anesthesia in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Buffered 4% Articaine Reduces Pain and Enhances Anesthesia in Maxillary Third Molar Extractions: A Randomized, Double-Blind Split-Mouth Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Comparing the Efficacy of 8.4% and 7.5% Buffered Lidocaine during Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar- A Split Mouth Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2024Article
- Investigating of Minimally Invasive Approaches in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Role of Laser in Soft Tissue Surgical Guide for Implant Placement.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Comparative Study of the Influence of Dental Implant Design on the Stress and Strain Distribution using the Finite Element Method.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Impact of Different Surgical Techniques on Nerve Function and Sensation after Maxillofacial Surgery.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Local Anesthetic Techniques for Pain Management in Pediatric Dental Procedures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and acceptability of buffered lidocaine (8.4% sodium bicarbonate and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) versus non-buffered lidocaine (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) during inferior alveolar nerve block. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty patients who required bilateral extractions in a single arch were included in this study. One hundred extractions were carried out, and all of the patients had nerve blocks during the procedure. We also took note of the patient's pain level as measured on a visual analog scale, as well as the start of the action, duration of postoperative analgesia, and occurrence of any problems. The duration of anesthesia was assessed by the feeling of numbness and the first sign of pain.
resultAll the patients in both study groups reported subjective numbness of the lips and tongue. The depth of anesthesia was evaluated by pain and comfort during the procedure with a visual analog scale and showed no significant difference between the two groups. The onset of action for the pterygomandibular nerve block was 1.240.31 minutes (buffered) and 1.710.51 minutes (non-buffered). When compared, the duration of anesthesia was 327.18102.98 minutes (buffered) and 129.0826.85 minutes (non-buffered).
conclusionThis study concludes that the buffered solution has a faster onset of action than the non-buffered solution. Both solutions exhibit similar intraoperative efficacy. The duration of postoperative anesthesia was prolonged with buffering. Buffering also reduced pain scores during the early postoperative period.
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.