Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38147088›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023

Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.

Mohammadreza Vatankhah, Nazanin Zargar, Mandana Naseri, Seyeddavood Sadeghi, Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban, Omid Dianat, John M Nusstein

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammadreza VatankhahIranian Center for Endodontic Research, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Nazanin ZargarDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mandana NaseriDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyeddavood SadeghiDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza Akbarzadeh BaghbanProteomics Research Center, Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Omid DianatDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Omiddianat@umaryland.edu.
John M NussteinDivision of Endodontics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data.

resultsMBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P < .001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P = .041 > .017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P < .001).

conclusionsBoth primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalAnestheticsPulpitisCarticaineEpinephrineHumansLidocaineMolarPainAnestheticsCarticaineEpinephrineLidocaineArticaineInferior alveolar nerve blockInfiltration anesthesiaIrreversible pulpitis

Identifiers

PMID38147088
OpenAlexW4390228578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.