ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine as Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis in Permanent Mandibular First Molars: A Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAchieving effective anesthesia during root canal treatment is particularly challenging in cases of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to the inflamed pulpal environment, which compromises anesthetic efficacy. Articaine and lignocaine are commonly used local anesthetics in endodontics, differing in onset time, duration, and pain control. The objective of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lignocaine combined with 1:80,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine combined with 1:100,000 epinephrine during root canal treatment of permanent mandibular first molars in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
method100 patients, 18-30 years old, with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in permanent mandibular first molars without any periapical pathology reported to the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Following the provision of written informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to receive a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block using either 1.8 mL of 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine (n = 50) or 1.7 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (n=50). Randomization was performed by an individual who did not take part in data acquisition. To avoid identification, the independent observer covered 50 cartridges containing 2% lignocaine and 50 cartridges containing 4% articaine with blue and pink colored tapes, respectively. Patients were subjectively assessed for lip anesthesia. Absence/presence of pulpal anesthesia was tested by using electric pulp stimulation, and absence/presence of pain was assessed by using a Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Appendix). Data were analyzed using IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp., with the Student's paired t-test to compare outcomes between the groups.
resultsThe articaine group showed a faster onset of anesthesia (4.3 min vs. 7.8 min), longer duration (120.8 ± 3 min vs. 64.9 ± 5.2 min), and better pain control during root canal treatment (mean pain score: 1.09 vs. 1.63) compared to the lignocaine group. These differences were statistically highly significant (p < 0.001).
conclusionArticaine demonstrated faster onset, longer duration, and better pain control than lignocaine, making it a preferred choice for inferior alveolar nerve block in permanent mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
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.