ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of effect of different premedication agents on efficacy of Articaine: A randomized contol trial.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type of study: Original Research. Aims: To comparatively evaluate the effect of different premedication agents on the efficacy of 4% Articaine in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and methods: The primary objective of our study is to evaluate the effect of premedication agents on efficacy of Articaine as an oral anesthetic. Our secondary objective is to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of Diclofenac patch, Ibuprofen tablet, Paracetamol tablet and Placebo as a premedication agent. Patients with 25-40 years age, no systemic disease, no history of medication for that complaint, with pain on Heft Parker Visual Analog Scale between 55 mm and 170 mm (VAS), no tenderness on percussion, cold test and EPT negative- Positive, giving proper consent, coming to the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics were allowed to participate. The exclusion criteria include the following- Non-vital teeth, pregnant and lactating women, allergic to Articaine and NSAIDs, active systemic disease, immune-compromised patients, taken analgesics in last 24 h, root fractures, restoration extending to pulp Results: During the access cavity preparation only 1 subject in the Group III reported pain while in other groups none of the subjects reported pain of any type. When the intergroup comparison was made of intensity of pain 15 min after LA and during access cavity preparation, the difference between the groups was statistically non-significant when analyzed using One Way ANOVA. The intragroup comparison between three time intervals revealed significant reduction in the pain scores from the pre-treatment levels in all the four groups. Conclusions: The results of the study showed that there is no significant effect of different premedication agents on the efficacy of 4% Articaine in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
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.