ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Third Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third molar extraction is a common surgical procedure, and it is associated with significant postoperative pain. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is an extended-release local anesthetic. This intervention was developed in its current form to provide prolonged analgesia and reduce opioid use. However, its efficacy in third molar surgery remains inconclusive and inconsistent. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of LB in third molar extraction. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing LB to standard bupivacaine or placebo. We performed the meta-analysis using R software with a random-effects model. Continuous outcomes were assessed using mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Four studies (three RCTs, one observational) with 858 participants were included. LB showed a statistically significant but clinically negligible reduction in opioid consumption at 48 hours (MD -1.20 morphine milligram equivalents (MME); 95% CI -1.79 to -0.61). One study reported a substantial reduction in opioid prescriptions (MD -66.70 MME). For analgesia, there was no statistically significant difference between LB and control in postoperative pain intensity (SMD -0.21; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.10) or cumulative pain scores (SMD -1.06; 95% CI -2.52 to 0.39) over 0-48 hours, with high heterogeneity in the latter (
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.