ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Evaluating Pain, Onset of Action, Duration, and Anesthetic Efficacy of Conventional and Buffered Lidocaine in Infiltration Anesthesia: A Comparative Clinical Study.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Buffered local anesthetics are proposed to alleviate injection pain, decrease onset time, and extend the duration of anesthesia. This research sought to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of buffered lidocaine compared to traditional lidocaine in patients having maxillary posterior teeth extraction due to chronic periapical lesions. Material and Methods: This double-blind, prospective, randomized clinical trial involved 100 adult participants (ASA I or II), aged 18 to 60, who needed extraction of maxillary posterior teeth. Participants were randomly assigned into two equal groups: Group A was given standard 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline; Group B was administered buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine combined with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. Standardized supraperiosteal infiltrative anesthesia was given. Discomfort from the injection was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the onset and duration of anesthesia were noted as well. All surgeries were carried out by a surgeon who was unaware of the study, and results evaluated by a second investigator also blinded to the details. Results: Group B (buffered lidocaine) showed considerably reduced pain scores during injection (VAS 2.8 ± 0.7) in contrast to Group A (4.2 ± 0.9; p < 0.01). The initiation of anesthesia occurred notably quicker in Group B (2.3 minutes compared to 4.7 minutes; p < 0.01). The duration of anesthesia in Group B was notably greater (45.8 ± 7.6 minutes compared to 36.4 ± 8.2 minutes; p < 0.01). The requirement for reinjection was not notably different among the groups (p = 0.678). Conclusions: Buffered lidocaine offers better anesthetic efficacy than standard lidocaine regarding injection comfort, quicker onset, and extended duration, making it a more effective choice for dental extractions.
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.