Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599949›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2025

Anesthetic effect of articaine and lidocaine in tooth extraction.

Abhigyan Manas, Archana H Lanje Misurya, Savita Singh, Jagadeesh K N, Subham Patra, Prasanna T R, Santosh T, Vaibhav Awinashe

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

Abhigyan ManasDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Archana H Lanje MisuryaDepartment of Dentistry, MLB Medical College, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Savita SinghOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic, T-265 B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Jagadeesh K NDepartment of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics & Implantology, Department of Dentistry, Siddaganga Medical College & Research Institute, Tumakur - 572102, Karnataka, India.
Subham PatraIntern, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Prasanna T RDepartment of Dentistry, Siddaganga Medical College & Research Institute, Tumakur - 572102, Karnataka, India.
Santosh TDepartment of Oral Pathology & Microbiology, Government Dental College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India.
Vaibhav AwinasheDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The safety and efficiency of 4% articaine compared to 2% lidocaine for tooth extraction is of interest to dentists. Hence, a total of 30 patients requiring premolar tooth extraction for orthodontics reason were randomly divided into 2 groups namely (1) articaine and (2) lidocaine. Parameters such as onset of action, duration of anaesthesia and need to re-anesthetize at the surgical zone are evaluated. Pain evaluation was done with visual analog scale (VAS). Data shows that 4% articaine had a shorter onset of action and longer duration of anaesthesia compared to lidocaine.

Indexed as

Articaineefficacylidocainelocal anaesthesiapain management

Identifiers

PMID40599949
PMCPMC12208266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.