Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy comparison of articaine versus lidocaine in dental anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Articaine provides a faster onset and longer duration of analgesia at lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine in third molar extractions.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Trial
- Review
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000), and 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) in third molar extraction surgery.
methodsSixty patients who underwent surgeries to extract upper and lower third molars were included in this split-mouth, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The groups in this study were divided according to the anesthetic solution used to provide local anesthesia during extraction of upper and lower third molars: (1) 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000); (2) 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000). The time to the beginning and end of the sensation of analgesia, pain sensation according to the VAS scale, and number of anesthetic tubes necessary for supplementation were analyzed.
resultsIt was found that the onset time for analgesia was shorter on the side anesthetized with articaine compared to the side anesthetized with lidocaine (122.1 ± 52.90 s vs. 144.5 ± 68.85 s) (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of tubes used for anesthetic supplementation was also reduced on the articaine side compared to the lidocaine side (0.26 ± 0.48 vs. 0.50 ± 0.75) (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the anesthetic solutions in the other evaluated parameters.
conclusionIt can be concluded that the use of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) reduced the time of onset of analgesia and the necessity for anesthetic supplementation in third molar extraction surgeries compared to the use of 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000).
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.