Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39923048›Full record

Trial reportBMC oral health2025

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and articaine used for buccal infiltration and supplemental palatinal infiltration anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized study.

Duygu Kolay, Damla Kırıcı

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06342869 (Comparison of the Effects of Lidocaine and Articaine Used for Buccal Infiltration and Supplemental Palatinal Infiltration Anesthesia in Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06342869 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of the Effects of Lidocaine and Articaine Used for Buccal Infiltration and Supplemental Palatinal Infiltration Anesthesia in Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorAkdeniz UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled80ConditionsFist and Second Molars With ırreversible PulpitisArmsAnesthesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Duygu KolayDentistry of Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4660-4291
Damla KırıcıDentistry of Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. d_ozsu@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-1034

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the efficiency of buccal infiltration versus combination of buccal and palatal infiltration to anesthetize maxillary molars with symptomaticirreversible pulpitis, wither lidocaine or articaine are used. MATERIAL-

methodsThis randomized clinical study was conducted on 80 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first and second molars. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups (n = 20). (1) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, (2) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80,000 epinephrine, (3) group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4.group buccal infiltration with 1.2 ml 2% lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine and palatinal infiltration with 0.5 ml lidocaine containing 80.000 epinephrine. The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) before injection, during access cavity preparation and access palatal canal. The data were analyzed by the chi-square and The Kruskal-Wallis tests.

resultsWithin the results of the study, no statistically significant difference was found between 4% articaine containing 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine containing 1:80,000 epinephrine in terms of anesthesia effectiveness (p > 0.05). When palatal infiltration anesthesia was applied in addition to buccal infiltration, the pain during entry into the palatal canals was significantly reduced compared to buccal infiltration anesthesia alone (p < 0.05).

conclusionsAccording to the results of this study, it may be recommended to use palatal infiltration anesthesia in addition to buccal infiltration anesthesia, independent of the anesthetic solution, for an effective pulpal anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis. CLINICAL

trial registrationRegistration number is "NCT06342869" and date of registration is 2024-04-02.Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalCarticaineLidocaineMolarPulpitisAdministration, BuccalAdultEpinephrineFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaPain MeasurementProspective StudiesAnesthetics, LocalCarticaineEpinephrineLidocaineArticaineInfiltration anesthesiaIrreversible pulpitisLidocaineMaxillary molar anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID39923048
PMCPMC11807300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.