ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Efficacy of Articaine versus Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents Using Buccal Infiltration Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Premolars.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Article
- Role of Pharmacology in Dentistry: A Review of Analgesics, Antibiotics, and Local Anesthetics.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lignocaine, commonly used for local anesthesia, often results in discomfort during mandibular premolar extractions due to limited tissue diffusion with the buccal infiltration technique. Articaine, with better lipid solubility, promises improved diffusion and patient comfort. This study compares the efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in reducing pain during mandibular premolar extractions. Methodology: A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial included 40 patients, aged between 18 and 40 years, undergoing bilateral mandibular premolar extractions. Each patient received 4% Articaine with adrenaline and 2% Lignocaine with adrenaline on opposite sides at separate appointments. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Faces Pain Scale (FPS). Results: Patients in the Articaine group reported significantly lower pain levels (mean FPS: 0.2) compared to the Lignocaine group (mean FPS: 3.6) ( Conclusion: Articaine demonstrated superior pain control, making it a more effective choice over Lignocaine for mandibular premolar extractions using the buccal infiltration technique.
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.