ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Revolutionising Third Molar Surgery: Unveiling the Superiority of Articaine and Lignocaine in Nerve Block Techniques. A Ground-breaking Triple-Blind, Randomised Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy comparison of articaine versus lidocaine in dental anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Efficacy of 4% Articaine versus Buffered 2% Lidocaine in Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: A Prospective Analytical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
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: The present study compared the efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and local infiltration with 4% articaine combined with IANB using 2% lignocaine in mandibular third molar surgery. Materials and Methods: This in-vivo study analysed 90 patients undergoing third molar surgery, divided into three groups. The appropriate groups received 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Various parameters, including anaesthesia duration, onset, surgery duration, postoperative analgesia duration, and intra-operative pain, were assessed using the Heft-Parker VAS. The collected data was evaluated for statistical analysis. Results: In this study, articaine demonstrated a shorter onset of action and longer analgesia duration when compared to lidocaine. Articaine infiltration provided an average analgesia duration of 32.37 + 8.9 min during surgery, surpassing articaine IANB and lignocaine IANB. Although the duration of anaesthesia and postoperative anaesthesia showed no significant differences, articaine infiltration had a slightly longer duration of action. Intra-operative pain assessment revealed that 50% of individuals in the articaine IANB group reported no pain. Conclusion: Articaine infiltrations are highly effective for anaesthesia in mandibular third molar extraction, surpassing other local anaesthetics. It is a superior alternative to regional nerve blocks in minor oral surgeries.
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.