ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2024
The efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% buffered articaine versus 2% un-buffered lidocaine for dental injections in children: a double-blind randomized parallel group control trial.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Article
- An update on articaine use in dentistry.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis trial aimed to study the efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.
methodsNinety-eight children who received endodontic painless treatment were collected and randomly divided into the control group and observation group, with 49 cases in each group. The control group received infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine, and the observation group received infiltration anesthesia with articaine. Anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, duration of anesthesia, pain intensity, blood pressure, heart rate, and adverse reactions were compared.
resultsThe effective rate of anesthesia in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. The anesthesia onset time and sensory recovery time were shorter, the duration of anesthesia was longer, and the VAS score and facial expression score were lower in the observation group than in the control group. The heart rate of the observation group was lower, and diastolic blood pressure was higher than those of the control group. The total incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group.
conclusionIn the treatment of dental pulp diseases in children, the use of articaine can achieve better anesthesia effect and rapid onset of anesthesia and has less impact on the patient's blood pressure and heart rate, but it also can relieve pain and has good safety after the use of medication. It is worthy of clinical application.
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.