SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Articaine buccal infiltration for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: is it as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine? a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Articaine buccal infiltration for mandibular first molars with irreversible pulpitis: is the evidence enough?Evidence-based dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI) with 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
methodsRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic efficiency of one cartridge of 4% articaine BI (as the primary injection) with one cartridge of 2% lidocaine IANB in permanent first mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis were searched in five databases. The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the RoB2 (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool). A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed using STATA software. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsOut of 780 records, five RCTs were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the success rates of articaine BI and lidocaine IANB [Risk ratio (RR) = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.93, 1.20), I
conclusionsThe moderate certainty of evidence suggests that the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine BI is comparable to 2% lidocaine IANB for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. However, more clinical trials are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BI with 4% articaine for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis can be an alternative for clinicians compared with 2% lidocaine IANB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39982504What 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.