ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2024
Comparing the Efficacy of 8.4% and 7.5% Buffered Lidocaine during Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar- A Split Mouth Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Study.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Conventional injection technique with adrenaline during removal of impacted third molar of mandible had proportionally increased pain during administration with slow onset of action and shorter duration of anesthesia. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effective nature of 8.4% and 7.5% buffered lidocaine hydrochloride during surgical removal of mandibular impacted third molar. Materials and Method: This prospective crossover study included 50 patients requiring bilateral removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Group I included 50 impacted mandibular third molars that were administered with 8.4% buffered lidocaine hydrochloride and group II included 50 impacted mandibular third molars were administered with 7.5% buffered lidocaine hydrochloride. The outcome variables were pain on injection, time of onset of anesthesia, and duration of action of anesthesia. The above parameters were recorded by the investigator and statistically analyzed through Chi-square test using SPSS software. Results: Patients in group I had mild pain (1.02) and patients in group II (5.74) had moderate pain with a statistical significance of Conclusion: Lidocaine hydrochloride buffered with 8.4 % sodium bicarbonate was found to be more effective in reduction of pain during injection, also had a faster onset of action and longer duration of the action of anesthesia when compared to 7.5% buffered lidocaine hydrochloride.
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.