ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2024
Comparative evaluation of the influence of the palatal root length on the efficacy of maxillary buccal infiltration by open and closed mouth technique: a randomized control trial.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Maxillary molars are commonly anesthetized via buccal infiltration. A patient's mouth opening during maxillary buccal infiltration can influence dental treatment. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the influence of palatal root length on the efficacy of 2% lidocaine in 1:80000 adrenaline for maxillary buccal infiltration (MBI) between the open- and closed-mouth techniques. Methods: Sixty patients were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The intensity of pre-operative pain was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). Samples were randomly divided using the chit method, with odd numbers in group 1 and multiples of two in group 2. In group 1 (n = 30), MBI was performed using the open-mouth technique, and in group 2 (n = 30), MBI was performed using the closed-mouth technique. Five minutes after injection, electric pulp testing was performed. For a negative response, patients were asked to rate their level of discomfort using the VAS. The palatal root length was measured after opening the access point using an apex locator. The groups were evaluated for patient discomfort using VAS. Results: Results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney test. A comparison of MBI between the open- and closed-mouth techniques showed that the closed-mouth technique had significantly better efficacy than the open-mouth technique when the palatal root length was greater than 19 mm (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, when the palatal root length was greater than 19 mm, the closed-mouth technique resulted in less patient discomfort, improved visibility, and better needle penetration.
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.