ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Efficacy of Articaine with Single Buccal Infiltration in Extraction of Maxillary Molars in Pediatric Patients.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of articaine buccal infiltration for the extraction of deciduous maxillary molars, assessing its effectiveness as a potential alternative to conventional local anesthesia techniques in pediatric dentistry. Methodology: A randomized clinical trial was conducted involving children aged 6-12 years requiring extraction of primary maxillary molars. Bilateral extraction was done in children, with one side receiving buccal infiltration with 4% articaine and the other side undergoing traditional infiltration with lidocaine. Pain perception during injection and extraction, onset and duration of anesthesia, and any adverse effects were recorded and analyzed using validated pain scales and statistical methods. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups for pain on administration of the local anesthetic agent. Intraoperative pain rating was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Articaine buccal infiltration appears to be equally effective as traditional infiltration with lidocaine and can be used as an alternative for the extraction of deciduous maxillary molars in children. How to cite this article: Ragulakollu RK, Namineni S, Cheruku S. Efficacy of Articaine with Single Buccal Infiltration in Extraction of Maxillary Molars in Pediatric Patients. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(3):324-330.
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.