Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2023
Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05200884 (A Comparison the Effectiveness of Anesthesia With Lidocaine 2% or Articaine 4% in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
A Comparison the Effectiveness of Anesthesia With Lidocaine 2% or Articaine 4% in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation (MIH)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of different anaesthetic techniques, agents and adjunctive interventions in handling pain during dental treatment of MIH-affected teeth: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Various Pain Control Methods in Managing MIH-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence mapping and quality assessment of randomised trials related to molar incisor hypomineralisation.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Effective anaesthesia when treating teeth affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 4% articaine with epinephrine in local anesthesia of maxillary molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Non-Operable Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Infraorbital Region Treated With Electrochemotherapy: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating Pain, Onset of Action, Duration, and Anesthetic Efficacy of Conventional and Buffered Lidocaine in Infiltration Anesthesia: A Comparative Clinical Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Unilateral molar Incisor hypomineralization influences the chewing side? an observational study in children.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Observational
- Application of articaine in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study.Frontiers in 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions.
methodsThe sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data.
resultsPatients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported.
conclusionsArticaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample.
trial registrationClinical trial, NCT05200884, ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884 ).
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.