ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Efficacy and safety of infiltration anesthesia with 4 % Articaine and block anesthesia with 2 % Lidocaine in the mandibular third molar extraction.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. 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.
- Association of 4% Articaine with Profound Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Success in Third Molar Surgery Performed by Dental Students: A Three-Anesthetic Observational Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- An update on articaine use in dentistry.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Articaine is a dental anesthetic that has been developed and widely used in recent years. This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy and safety of infiltration anesthesia with 4 % Articaine (with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and block anesthesia with 2 % Lidocaine (with 1:100,000 epinephrine) in the mandibular third molar extraction. Materials and methods: This prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was planned to involve 30 adults with the bilateral mandibular third molars. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 4 % Articaine (Articaine group) by infiltration anesthesia on one side and 2 % Lidocaine (Lidocaine group) by block anesthesia on the opposite side. Parameters such as the heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, anesthetic usage, operation duration, pain score, satisfaction, and adverse events were recorded and analyzed. Results: Finally, 26 participants receiving the bilateral mandibular third molar extraction were included. There were no significant differences in the heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and maximum fluctuations during the extraction procedure between the two groups, except the maximum heart rate fluctuation showing statistical significance. Additionally, the amount of anesthetic used was significantly lower in the Articaine group (1.5 ± 0.4 cartridges) than in the Lidocaine group (2.2 ± 0.5 cartridges) ( Conclusion: Using 4 % Articaine for infiltration anesthesia offers comparable pain control to 2 % Lidocaine for block anesthesia in the mandibular third molar extraction surgery. Using 4 % Articaine can safely achieve similar pain control with lower doses and less invasive anesthesia techniques.
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.