ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Why choose articaine over lidocaine for the removal of third molars? Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of 4% Articaine with Profound Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Success in Third Molar Surgery Performed by Dental Students: A Three-Anesthetic Observational Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Managing Brugada Syndrome in a Private Dental Practice: A Structured Case-Based Review.Cureus · 2025Article
- Articaine as a potential alternative to lidocaine in Japanese dental practice.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- The efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present study was to seek scientific evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis for the choice of articaine over lidocaine in the removal of third molars. Material and Methods: Searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases as well as the grey literature. Results: Four hundred three articles were found, only 14 of which met the eligibility criteria. A total of 1114 third molars were removed: 557 with articaine and 557 with lidocaine. Articaine had a higher success rate than lidocaine (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.15; Conclusions: Based on the findings, articaine is superior to lidocaine for use in lower third molar surgeries due to the higher success rate, shorter time until the onset of action, greater control of intraoperative and postoperative pain, and longer duration of the anesthetic effect.
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.