ReviewCureus2025
Anesthetic Efficacy of Mental/Incisive Nerve Block Versus Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Mandibular Premolars With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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.
- Dento-Osseous Variability of the Mental Foramen: A Retrospective CT-Based Morphometric Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize the current evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success of mental/incisive nerve block (MINB) versus inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis affecting mandibular premolars. A thorough literature search was performed using databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. The search covered publications up to June 2025. The focused PICOTT question for this review was: "What is the anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis?". The included studies were evaluated for quality using the ROB 2 tool for non-randomized designs, while the certainty of the evidence was assessed through the GRADE approach. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to address potential variability among studies. Three RCTs were included. Overall, the risk of bias was considered low to moderate using the ROB 2 tool. The GRADE assessment indicated that the certainty of evidence was rated as very low. The overall pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in success rates between the MINB and IANB techniques (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.12; P = 0.40), with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis by premolar type showed no significant differences between techniques for either first (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.64-1.65; P = 0.90; I² = 0%) or second premolars (OR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.76-1.98; P = 0.40; I² = 0%). In conclusion, the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate no clear difference in anesthetic efficacy between MINB and IANB techniques. However, most studies suggest that achieving adequate pulpal anesthesia requires the use of supplemental anesthesia.
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.