ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Articaine Needle - Free Anesthesia Vs Conventional Anesthesia in Root Canal Treatment of Irreversible Pulpitis in Permanent Teeth: A Prospective Study on Anesthetic Efficacy and Effects on Pain.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of articaine needle-free anesthesia with conventional lidocaine nerve block anesthesia for root canal treatment in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Methods: In this prospective clinical trial, 94 patients were randomly allocated to receive either articaine needle-free anesthesia (n=47) or lidocaine nerve block anesthesia (n=47). Anesthetic effectiveness was evaluated through onset time, success rate, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during crown opening and pulp removal procedures. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic stability (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and incidence of adverse reactions. Results: The articaine group exhibited significantly faster anesthesia onset (7.62±1.28 minutes vs 9.35±2.04 minutes, p<0.05) and higher success rate (93.62% vs 80.85%, p<0.05). Patients receiving articaine reported significantly lower pain scores during crown opening (4.31±1.13 vs 5.48±1.06) and pulp removal (3.18±1.07 vs 4.26±1.12) (both p<0.05). Both groups maintained comparable hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure (p>0.05), with no significant difference in adverse reaction rates (11.49% vs 10.64%, p>0.05). Conclusion: Articaine needle-free anesthesia demonstrates superior clinical performance compared to conventional lidocaine nerve block, offering faster onset, improved success rate, and enhanced pain control during root canal treatment of irreversible pulpitis, while maintaining equivalent safety parameters. These findings support its adoption as an effective alternative for dental anesthesia in endodontic procedures.
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.