ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Safety Evaluation of Articaine and Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
Aims and background: Articaine is known to be safe in children; however, it is not suggested for children under the age of four. Various studies have been performed that show articaine as a superior local anesthetic (LA) agent when compared with lignocaine. This study aimed to systematically review the safety of lignocaine and articaine as LA agents in pediatric dental patients. Method: An electronic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on adverse reactions of lignocaine and articaine in children between 4 and 13 years of age was conducted. The databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, CBM, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI. A thorough electronic search was conducted for studies published up to May 2024. Seven articles were included in the systematic review. For each of the included studies, the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed. Relative risk (RR) and standard deviations were used to summarize the data from each of the studies, and meta-analyses were conducted with studies of limited heterogeneity. Results: Based on the available evidence, lignocaine and articaine appear to have similar safety profiles when used as LA agents in pediatric dental patients. Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant statistical difference in favor of soft tissue injury [RR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.17, 1.28), Conclusion: Buccal infiltration with 4% articaine was equally safe as inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lignocaine for primary tooth extraction and endodontic procedures. More clinical trials should be conducted that measure the effects of lignocaine and articaine on blood pressure, pulse rate, and tissue rehabilitation. How to cite this article: Babhulgaonkar PB, Dahake PT, Dadpe MV,
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.