Trial reportAnesthesia progress2024
Efficacy of Maxillary Buccal Infiltration of Articaine for Palatal Anesthesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study.
Trial report in Anesthesia progress, 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.
- Comparison of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection and buccal infiltration as single-injection anesthetic techniques for orthodontic extraction of maxillary first premolars: a randomized split-mouth clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although there are conflicting data, several authors have proposed that articaine's molecular properties suggest improved perfusion capabilities over other amide anesthetics. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of palatal soft-tissue anesthesia following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Methods: One hundred eighteen adults received 1.8 or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Palatal soft-tissue anesthesia was evaluated with a dental explorer. Anesthetic success was defined as the absence of pain with an explorer stick. For the subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia, mapping was conducted over 70 minutes, and the overall area of palatal anesthesia was calculated. The data were analyzed using chi-square tests. Results: The highest percentage of palatal anesthetic success was 20% for the 1.8-mL volume and 32% for the 3.6-mL volume both at 30 minutes. A statistically significant difference between the 1.8- and 3.6-mL volumes was seen at 40 minutes. There was high variability in area measurements for subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia. The highest area measurements were 92 mm2 for the 1.8-mL volume at 20 minutes and 113 mm2 for the 3.6-mL volume at 10 minutes. Conclusion: Because of the low success rates (20%-32%) and the high variability of the area anesthetized for the subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia, the clinical efficacy of 1.8 or 3.6 mL of articaine via buccal infiltration for palatal anesthesia is of questionable value.
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.