ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2024
Comparative Evaluation of the Anesthetic Efficacy of 1% Chloroprocaine Vis-a-vis 2% Lignocaine with Adrenaline (1:80,000) in Third Molar Surgery.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 1% chloroprocaine in comparison to 2% lignocaine hydrochloride and adrenaline (1:80,000) in third molar surgery. Materials and Methods: A randomized single-blind trial comprising of 30 healthy patients requiring bilateral extraction of impacted lower third molars with similar difficulty index was undertaken. A test dose was administered to all patients with subdermal infiltration of 1% chloroprocaine with 0.5 ml. A classic inferior alveolar and long buccal nerve block was given using 1% chloroprocaine 2 ml on one side and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride 2 ml with adrenaline on the other side. The time to onset and duration of action were noted. Pain during the surgical intervention, need for additional local anesthetic solution during the surgical intervention and the hemodynamic changes associated with the administration of the drugs were monitored. Results: Chloroprocaine had an early onset of action with a mean of 1.17 ± 0.55 min as compared to lignocaine 4.2 ± 0.48 min. Patients administered with lignocaine experienced less postoperative pain compared with chloroprocaine since the duration of action of chloroprocaine was lesser than that of lignocaine. Additional amount of LA was required when chloroprocaine was administered as compared to lignocaine. Chloroprocaine alone did not cause any appreciable changes in the hemodynamics, but lignocaine with adrenaline caused a transient increase in arterial pressure and heart rate 2 min following the administration. It was also observed that more blood was lost following chloroprocaine administration than with lignocaine. Conclusion: Chloroprocaine has a rapid onset of action and short duration of action with minimal effects on the hemodynamic changes than lignocaine. Considering the fact that it is a safe drug with no effects of the cardiovascular system it can be advocated that Chloroprocaine can be used as an effective local anesthetic agent for performing oral and maxillofacial surgical interventions of short duration.
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.