Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of 0.5M mannitol as an adjuvant to lidocaine and epinephrine for intra-oral nerve blocks - a split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn dentistry operations, addition 0.5 M mannitol to lidocaine-epinephrine improves anesthesia efficacy. However, its effect on hemodynamic parameters and post-operative outcomes have not been evaluated. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, hemodynamic parameters, and post-operative outcomes of 2% lidocaine and 1:200,000 epinephrine, with or without 0.5 M mannitol, in intra-oral nerve blocks. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled, triple-blind, split-mouth study included 25 patients who required intra-oral block for elective extraction of lower erupted teeth. The Test side (n = 25) received lidocaine-epinephrine-mannitol, while the Control side (n = 25) received lidocaine-epinephrine. The primary outcome measures were evaluated were onset and duration of anesthesia. The secondary outcome measures were pain (assessed with visual analogue scale [VAS] on day 0-3, and 7); hemodynamic parameters (including heart rate, systolic blood pressure [SBP], diastolic blood pressure [DBP], and oxygen saturation, assessed pre-, intra-, and post-operatively); and post-operative complications (swelling and trismus assessed on day 7).
resultsThe Test side had a significantly early onset of action (p = 0.006) and delayed return of sensation (p = 0.001). On day 0, VAS score was significantly lower in the Test side (p = 0.017), with no difference at other intervals (p > 0.05). Post-operatively, mouth opening was significantly greater on the test side (p = 0.023), with no difference in post-operative swelling (p = 0.317). The control side had a significantly higher intra- (p = 0.018) and post-operative (p = 0.006) heart rate, with comparable SBP, DBP, and oxygen saturation.
conclusionLidocaine-epinephrine-mannitol formulation showed improved anesthetic efficacy, reduced pain on the day of procedure, stable hemodynamic parameters, and increased post-operative mouth opening.
trial registrationCTRI/2022/10/046921 [Registered on: 31/10/2022].
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.