ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Split-mouth Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine for Extractions of Deciduous Maxillary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration and Intraligamentary Injection with 4% Articaine in Primary Molars:International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- True Allergies to Articaine: A 25-Year Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To clinically evaluate whether 4% articaine administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in deciduous maxillary tooth extraction can provide favorable palatal anesthesia compared to buccal and palatal infiltrations using 2% lidocaine. Materials and methods: A prospective, double-blind, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical study was carried out on 60 children comprising 36 females and 24 males in the age group of 5-10 years. During two separate appointments, children randomly received either 4% articaine with 1:1,00,000 epinephrine (group I-experimental) as buccal infiltration alone, or 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine (group II-control) as buccal plus palatal infiltration. Second local anesthetic agent was administered at least 1 week apart from first administration. Efficacy of anesthesia was assessed using subjective [Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale (WBFPS)] and objective [sound, eye, motor (SEM)] scales along with occurrence of any adverse effects. Results: For infiltration procedure, 4% articaine (group I) had statistically highly significant ( Conclusion: About 4% articaine buccal infiltration showed better clinical anesthetic efficacy, thus providing effective palatal anesthesia due to its enhanced vestibule-palatal diffusion with no significant postanesthetic complications. Hence, articaine can be used as an alternative to lidocaine in children for extractions of deciduous maxillary teeth. How to cite this article: Jankar JL, Pustake BJ. Split-mouth Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine for Extractions of Deciduous Maxillary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(S-1):S6-S10.
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.