ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Clonidine versus Adrenaline as an Adjunct to Lignocaine on Haemodynamic Parameters during Nerve Block for Third Molar Surgical Removal - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic stability with clonidine versus adrenaline in mandibular third molar surgeries.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- A comparative study of two different doses of dexmedetomedine as an adjuvant to lignocaine in infiltration block for tympanoplasty: a triple-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adrenaline or clonidine is used as adjuncts in conjunction with lignocaine to improve the depth of local anaesthesia in dental procedures. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis intends to compare the haemodynamic parameters when clonidine or adrenaline is used in conjunction with lignocaine for third-molar surgical removal. Data Sources: Cochrane, PubMed and Ovid SP databases were searched using "MeSH" terms Study Eligibility Criteria: Clinical studies where Clonidine + lignocaine and Adrenaline + lignocaine were compared directly during nerve block administration exclusively for third molar surgical removal were selected. Participants Study Appraisal: This current systematic review is registered in Prospero database CRD42021279446. Two independent reviewers were involved in collection, segregation and analysis of electronic data. The data were compiled in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Search was conducted till June 2021. Synthesis Methods: Qualitative analysis of the selected articles was performed for systematic review. Meta-analysis is performed using RevMan 5 Software. Heterogeneity through the I Results: In all databases, 1141 records were screened, out of which a total of 21 articles were included for the evaluation for full-text analysis. Out of these, 16 articles were excluded and 5 articles were included for the final systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed only for 4 studies. Conclusion: Amongst the evaluated haemodynamic parameters, there was a significant reduction in the heart rate (baseline to intraoperative period) in clonidine and lignocaine groups than in adrenaline and lignocaine groups during nerve block administration for third molar surgical removal. There was no significant difference between other primary and secondary outcomes evaluated. Limitations: Blinding was not performed in all the studies, randomisation was performed in only three studies. The volume of local anaesthesia deposited varied in the studies (2 mL in three studies and 2.5 mL in two studies). Most of the studies (
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.