ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
A comparative clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of lignocaine 2% and articaine 4% for anesthesia of mandibular first molars with irreversible pulpitis.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2026. 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
Introduction: Achieving anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP) is quite challenging. This study highlights the efficacy of two clinically effective local anesthetic agents - lidocaine 2% and articaine 4%. Methodology: Thirty healthy individuals belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists 1 with previously diagnosed acute IP of mandibular first molars requiring root canal treatment were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 15 each. Informed consent was obtained, and intradermal allergy test was performed. Group A: patients receiving lidocaine HCl 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septodont, France) and Group B: patients receiving articaine HCl 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septodont, France). After adhering to aseptic measures, a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block was administered by palpating the anatomical landmarks, and around 1.8 ml of the anesthetic solution was deposited. Onset of anesthesia, extent of pulpal anesthesia, pain on injection were assessed and statistically analyzed. Results: Onset of action was faster with articaine 4%. There was no significant difference between the EPT scores for both the groups, and pain was of mild intensity. Conclusion: Articaine is an efficient alternative for effective pain management in patients with IP.
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.