Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Articaine provides a faster onset and longer duration of analgesia at lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine in third molar extractions.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the anesthetic efficacy of mepivacaine and articaine in third molar extractions.
methodsIn this split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 36 patients underwent extraction of all four third molars. Each patient received two different local anesthetics: one side was anesthetized with 2% mepivacaine with epinephrine (1:100,000), and the other with 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000). Anesthesia was administered using three cartridges per hemiarch to achieve analgesia for both maxillary and mandibular third molars. The number of supplemental anesthetic cartridges used, the onset and duration of anesthesia, and intraoperative pain (measured using the Visual Analog Scale [VAS]) were recorded.
resultsThe side anesthetized with articaine demonstrated a significantly shorter onset time (p < 0.05) and a longer duration of analgesia (p < 0.01) compared to the mepivacaine side. Fewer supplemental cartridges were required when articaine was used (p < 0.05). Patients did not report significant differences in perceived pain between the mepivacaine and articaine sides (p > 0.05).
conclusionIt can be concluded that articaine provides a faster onset and a longer duration of anesthesia lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41068533What 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.