ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration and Intraligamentary Injection with 4% Articaine in Primary Molars:
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) and intraligamentary (IL) injection with 4% articaine in achieving anesthesia for pulp therapy in primary mandibular molars. Materials and methods: A study was conducted in children aged between 4 and 8 years, whose primary mandibular molars were indicated for pulp therapy. Both injection procedures, IL and BI using articaine, were used in the same patient for bilateral pulp therapy of primary mandibular molars at an interval of 1 week appointments. Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scale, Facial Image Scale (FIS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used to assess pain at the time of injection and at the time of pulp therapy. Statistical analysis was done using the Chi-square test, independent Results: Both IL and BI techniques using 4% articaine serve as an alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with lignocaine. Conclusion: BI was less painful and more comfortable in patients at and during the time of pulp therapy when compared to IL injection. How to cite this article: Saket A, Gupta S, Pandey P,
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.