Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2023
Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2023. 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the effects of %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine on inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for implant surgery in the posterior mandible. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe patients who have inserted implants in the posterior mandible were divided into 2 groups for IANB: lidocaine and articaine. VAS = visual analog scale, pain during surgery and injection, lip numbness time, mandibular canal-implant apex distance, age, gender, bone density, implant number, release incision, adjacent teeth, and duration of surgery were analyzed using t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's coefficient, and, Pearson's chi-squared test. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials.
results577 patients were included and 1185 dental implants were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of injection and surgery VAS values (p>0.05). The lip numbness time of lidocaine was 3.06±3.22min while articaine was found to be 2.96±3.09min (p>0.05). Mandibular canal-implant apex distance was found to be 2.28±0.75mm in the articaine and 2.45±0.86mm in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). Release incision was made more in the articaine group (51/252) than in the lidocaine group (40/325) (p<0.05).
conclusionsThere was no difference between the %4 articaine and %2 lidocaine in terms of pain perception in posterior mandible implant applications. Both anesthetics provided adequate anesthesia for implant application.
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.