Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Evaluation of the efficacy of buffered local anesthetic in extraction of infected teeth-randomized double-blind study.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Buffered versus Non-buffered Local Anaesthesia in Minor Oral Surgery - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
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
purposeIn the presence of infection, acidic pH of a lignocaine local anesthetic causes undesirable effects such as burning on injection, relatively slow onset, and lack of numbness. Buffered lignocaine will increase the pH of the solution and may resolve above problems. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of buffered lignocaine with that of commercial lignocaine.
methodSeventy patients with infected teeth were randomly divided into two equal groups. The study group received buffered lignocaine (8.4% sodium bicarbonate added to 2% lignocaine mixture) while the control received commercial lignocaine preparation (2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline). Burning while injection, pain using VAS scale and onset of action with EPT (electric pulp tester) were recorded.
resultsIn the study group, the VAS score after injection was 1.20 ± 0.68 and the control group was 2.57 ± 0.92 (p = 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain reduction in the study group. The time of onset was 3.97 ± 0.71 and 5.67 ± 1.15 min, respectively, and the difference was statically significant. Only one-third of the study group experienced burning on injection as compared to two-thirds in the control group.
conclusionBuffered lignocaine is more effective as compared to commercial lignocaine in the extraction of infected teeth. CTRI NUMBER: CTRI/2022/01/039476.
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.