SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
The effectiveness of using local anesthesia with general anesthesia in pediatric dental rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
backgroundThere are no established evidence-based guidelines for the administration of intraoperative local anesthesia (LA) during dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia (GA). This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of intraoperative LA on physiological parameters and pain control in children undergoing GA for comprehensive dental treatment.
methodsComprehensive search was conducted across four electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO, and Scopus. Search strategy was structured, yielding 14 articles that follow the study inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized trials and confidence of recommendation according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Whenever there were sufficient studies with comparable data, meta-analysis was performed.
resultsPain levels were significantly lower in the LA group compared to controls (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.70, P = 0.005). Lip and/or cheek biting occurred more frequently in the LA group, though this difference was not statistically significant. Although reductions were observed in physiological parameters, only the decrease in end-tidal CO₂ volume reached statistical significance (P = 0.02). The included studies were rated as having low confidence and quality based on the GRADE assessment.
conclusionWhile the intraoperative use of LA under GA reduced postoperative pain and end-tidal CO₂ volume, other effects were negligible, making its routine use optional. Evidence suggests targeting LA for high-pain procedures, such as multiple extractions, while exercising caution or withholding it during deep sedation to mitigate potential drops in tidal volume. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022340846.
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.