ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2024
Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy and Onset of Local Anesthesia Using Buffered 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Adrenaline, Non-buffered 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Adrenaline, Buffered 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 Adrenaline and Non-buffered 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 Adrenaline in Dental Extraction.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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.
- Evaluating Pain, Onset of Action, Duration, and Anesthetic Efficacy of Conventional and Buffered Lidocaine in Infiltration Anesthesia: A Comparative Clinical Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- In Vitro Proof-of-Concept Study: Lidocaine and Epinephrine Co-Loaded in a Mucoadhesive Liquid Crystal Precursor System for Topical Oral Anesthesia.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Buffered versus Non-buffered Local Anaesthesia in Minor Oral Surgery - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the efficacy and onset of local anesthesia using buffered versus non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline in dental extraction. Methodology: A prospective, clinical study was carried out in oral and maxillofacial surgery department. Twenty-eight patients were considered in the study and were divided into 4 groups. Each group randomly received either buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline, non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline, buffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline or non-buffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The outcome variable was onset of anesthesia and effectiveness of anesthesia in buffered and non-buffered group. Results: Results showed that the mean onset of time and efficacy of local anesthesia was significantly better in buffered when compared with non-buffered local anesthetic solution with adrenaline. Conclusion: In conclusion, the addition of sodium bicarbonate as a buffering agent decreases time of onset and increases the effectiveness of local anesthetics, thus providing comfort to the patient. The mean onset of time for first symptom as well as lip numbness was more for non-buffered lidocaine followed by non-buffered articaine, buffered lidocaine and buffered articaine. The mean onset of time for subjective and objective symptoms was more for non-buffered anesthetic solution as compared to buffered anesthetic solution. VAS readings were not statistically significant among the four groups.
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.