ArticlePharmaceutics2024
A Buffered Local Anesthetic Without Epinephrine: Development, Characterization, and In Vivo Efficacy and Toxicity Analysis.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 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 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
- Enhanced Transdermal Delivery of Lidocaine Hydrochloride via Dissolvable Microneedles (LH-DMNs) for Rapid Local Anesthesia.Biosensors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) 2% with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LW/E) is widely used to prevent pain during dental procedures and has been associated with injection sting, jittering effects, slow onset, and a bitter aftertaste. Since LW/E's introduction in 1948, no significant modifications have been proposed. This study aims to design and characterize an improved dental lidocaine HCl injectable formulation without epinephrine (LW/O/E) via buffers, sweeteners, and amino acids. LW/O/E injections were prepared with pH and osmolality values of 6.5-7.0 and 590-610 mOsm/kg. Using the electronic tongue (ETongue), the LW/O/E injectable formulations were characterized for viscosity, injectability, and taste analysis. The results were compared with the LW/E control. In vivo efficacy and anesthetic duration of the samples were measured through radiant heat tail-flick latency (RHTFL) and hot plate (HP) tests and local toxicity was assessed after a single intra-oral injection in Sprague Dawley rats (SDR). The viscosity and injectability values of the LW/O/E samples were found to be comparable to the LW/E injection. ETongue taste analysis showed an improvement in bitterness reduction of the LW/O/E samples compared to the LW/E formulation. Toxicity studies of samples in SDR showed minor and transient signs of erythema/eschar and edema. Anesthetic duration via RHTFL and HP paw withdrawal latency time in SDR were found to be comparable for the LW/O/E Sample 3A and the LW/E injection (
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.