SynthesisActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus articaine in third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis review systematically compares the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery, with a focus on postoperative pain control, duration of analgesia, intraoperative outcomes, and hemodynamic stability.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through December 24th, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), duration of postoperative analgesia, and need for rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes included anesthesia onset time, intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and hemodynamic parameters. Meta-analysis was performed using a random--effects model.
resultsA total of 11 RCTs involving 749 patients (bupivacaine: 367, articaine: 382) were included. Bupivacaine significantly reduced postoperative pain scores at multiple time points, with the greatest effect observed at 4 h postoperatively (mean difference [MD] = -2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.41, -1.77; I2 = 0%). The duration of postoperative analgesia was comparable between groups (MD = 91.22 min; 95% CI: -5.13, 187.57; I2 = 99.68%), with sensitivity analysis confirming this effect. Articaine exhibited a significantly faster onset of anesthesia (MD = 0.74 min; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12; I2 = 81.05%), while intraoperative pain scores, surgical difficulty, and operative time were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in hemodynamic parameters, suggesting similar safety profiles.
conclusionBupivacaine provides superior postoperative pain control and prolonged analgesia, making it advantageous for extended pain relief in third molar surgery. However, articaine's faster onset may enhance surgical efficiency. Both anesthetics demonstrated comparable intraoperative efficacy and safety.
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.