Trial reportBrazilian oral research2026
Microneedles enhance the efficacy of topical dental anesthesia in male subjects: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Brazilian oral research, 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
This study aimed to determine whether microneedles (MN) can enhance the efficacy of a commercially available topical anesthetic (EMLA®) when applied to the palatal mucosa. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, 30 male volunteers received bilateral applications of MN patches and flat patches (FL, without MN) on the palatal mucosa. EMLA® was subsequently applied for either 2 or 5 min in separate sessions. Immediately thereafter, infiltrative anesthesia was administered, and pain intensity associated with needle insertion and local anesthetic injection was measured using a 0-100 Visual Analogue Scale. No differences in pain intensity were observed during needle insertion or local anesthetic injection when MN and FL patches were compared, irrespective of the duration of EMLA® application. However, a significantly higher proportion of participants reported pain-free infiltrative anesthesia when EMLA® was applied for 2 min following MN pretreatment (40%) compared with FL pretreatment (10%) (p = 0.008). MN application was not associated with adverse effects. Pretreatment with MN enhances the clinical efficacy of intraoral topical anesthesia in males. These findings open new avenues for exploration of advanced transbuccal drug delivery technologies focused on fast-release systems that may improve clinical outcomes in topical dental anesthesia.
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.