ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2024
The Use of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Dentistry: A Survey of Specialists' Current Practices in Children and Attitudes in Relation to Articaine.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2024. 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.
- MaxSafe: a mobile-friendly calculator for fractional local anesthetic toxicity and epinephrine dose tracking in dental practice.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the most effective combination of needle gauge with TENS, EMLA or topical spray for minimal pain during pediatric local anaesthesia: A randomized clinical trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Injectable In Situ Thermoreversible Gel Depot System of Lidocaine Nanoemulsion for Prolonged Anesthetic Activity in Dental and Operative Procedures.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Observational Study on Progressive Muscle Relaxation and Breathing Control for Reducing Dental Anxiety in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical practices of local anesthesia in children. The study also sought to investigate pediatric dentists' views on articaine infiltration anesthesia and their willingness to use it to replace the inferior dental nerve block in primary molars. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was emailed to 183 registered specialists. Descriptive statistics along with chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 72 responses were received. The sample consisted of 62 (86.1%) females and 10 (13.8%) males with varying levels of experience. The vast majority of respondents (98.6%) used topical anesthesia in their practice with children. The most frequently used anesthetic agent was 2% lidocaine (72.2%) followed by 4% articaine (54.2%). The entire sample indicated that they frequently find difficulties in dose calculation for their child patient. Gender and level of experience did not significantly influence specialists' practice or their knowledge of local anesthesia. More than a third (31.9%) of participants were not happy to replace the block anesthesia with articaine infiltration for the treatment of lower primary molars. The most indicated reasons for this unwillingness were lack of effectiveness (11%) and inadequate scientific evidence (11%). Conclusion: Most pediatric dentists used topical anesthesia with children. Lidocaine was the most commonly used injectable local anesthesia. Specialists' current practices of local anesthesia in children generally conformed well to good standards. However, inadequate knowledge regarding dose calculation was revealed. In addition, specialists' reluctance to use articaine infiltration instead of the block anesthesia was evident in the current population. Further studies, with larger sample size are encouraged.
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.