ArticleCureus2022
A Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Effectiveness of 4% Articaine vs 0.5% Bupivacaine for Lower Molar Tooth Extraction.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus articaine in third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafe and efficient pain control is essential for today's dental practice. This randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of 0.5% bupivacaine with 4% articaine in lower molar tooth extraction.
methodsOne hundred subjects were classified into two groups, with 50 samples for each. Group A participants were managed with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and group B participants with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for mandibular first and second molar extraction. Criteria such as onset and duration of anesthesia, pain throughout the procedure, pain during injection, and pain after the procedure were evaluated. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) and heart rate (per minute)were evaluated for all participants.
resultsThere was a faster onset (53.2 vs 83.1 s) and lesser duration of action (216.6 vs 298.4 min) with articaine (group B) compared to bupivacaine (group A). Thirty-eight (76.0%) participants in group A and 44 (88.0%) participants in group B did not require re-anesthesia, whereas 12 (24%) participants in group A and six (12%) participants in group B required one-time re-anesthesia and it was insignificant.
conclusionArticaine has a faster onset but a relatively lower duration of action and requires statistically insignificant but lower re-anesthesia. As a result, articaine anesthesia can be efficiently recommended in oral surgical techniques.
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.