ArticleCureus2023
A Split-Mouth Clinical Comparative Evaluation of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lignocaine for Maxillary Bicuspids Extraction.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy comparison of articaine versus lidocaine in dental anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Anesthetic effect of articaine and lidocaine in tooth extraction.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The study compared the anesthetic effectiveness of articaine and lignocaine when premolars are extracted bilaterally for orthodontic purposes. Material and methods This prospective split-mouth study was performed on 30 cases selected from orthodontic referral patients reporting to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Center, Rajasthan, India, for bilateral extraction of premolars under local anesthesia. We used 4% articaine hydrochloride and adrenaline 1:100000 (AH) as group A and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with adrenaline 1:100000 (LH) on the control side as group B. For premolar anesthetization, 0.6-1.6 ml of AH and 1-2 ml of LH were injected submucosally in the buccal vestibular area. The extraction procedure was then carried out after achieving adequate anesthesia. The pain was assessed with Visual Analog Scale. The average onset time and duration of anesthesia were recorded. Data collected were summarized with descriptive statistics. The SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York) was used for data entry, validation, and analysis. Means of continuous variables were compared using the student t-test. All tests were 2-tailed and significant at equal or less than 0.05. (p≤0.05). Results When comparing the overall anesthetic efficiency, Group A had a lower overall pain score of 0.43 while Group B had a higher overall pain score of 2.9. The average onset time of anesthesia in Group A was 1.2 minutes and 2.55 minutes in Group B. In Group A, the average duration of anesthesia was 70 minutes, and 46.5 minutes in Group B. These parameters were statistically significant with a p-value of <0.05. Conclusion The study concluded that as an alternative to lignocaine, articaine could be used effectively for maxillary premolar extractions for orthodontic reasons obviating palatal injection which is very painful to the patient.
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.