ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Effectiveness and Tolerability of a New Formulation of a Topical Anesthetic in Reduction of Pain and Parents' Satisfaction in Pediatric Dentistry.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mucoadhesive patch versus benzocaine gel for reducing injection pain: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Pain Perception Following Topical Application of Clove Oil, EMLA 5%, and Lignocaine Hydrochloride Gel 2% as a Pre-anesthetic Agent in Children Aged 7-10 Years: A Randomized Controlled Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Tolerability of a New Experimental Mucoadhesive Patch for Topical Anesthesia of Oral Mucosa in Pediatric Dentistry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to test a new topical anesthetic gel with a different formulation (10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine) to analyze its effectiveness in pain control, during the subsequent injection of local anesthetic, and the presence of any side effects.
methodsThe study's research design was a randomized controlled clinical trial on 300 children, aged 5-8 years, divided into two groups, each of 150 patients, according to pre-injection procedures (presence or absence of topical anesthesia). The injection pain was analyzed using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (PRS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale (FLACC). At the end of the procedures, patients' parents' satisfaction was recorded. The data were analyzed using the Student's
resultsThere were statistically significant differences between the two groups both in the PRS and FLACC ratings. Both in subjective and objective pain evaluations, significantly higher pain ratings were observed in the group without topical anesthesia. There was also a statistically significant difference in terms of patients' parents' judgment, as in the group with the use of topical anesthetic the level of parental satisfaction is statistically higher.
conclusionThe experimental anesthetic has proved very effective in its use as a topical gel in both pain measurement scales, thus validating its use on the oral mucosa, for its pharmacological and psychological effect, in the total absence of local and systemic side effects.
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.