Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558346›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2026

Comparative evaluation of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% buffered articaine versus 2% un-buffered lidocaine for dental injections in children: a double-blind randomized parallel group control trial.

Ashish Suresh, Sunny Priyatham Tirupathi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ashish SureshDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1801-0316
Sunny Priyatham TirupathiDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-0090

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective pain control is central to the pediatric dental practice. Buffering local anesthetics with sodium bicarbonate raises the solution pH to physiological levels, theoretically accelerating the onset and reducing injection discomfort. Although buffered lidocaine has been studied in children, direct evidence comparing buffered 4% articaine with the most widely used clinical alternative (non-buffered 2% lidocaine) in a pediatric outpatient setting with a comprehensive outcome assessment remains scarce. This study aimed to compare buffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in children aged 6-12 years requiring single-tooth dental procedures and evaluate multiple clinically relevant outcomes, including pain, anesthetic onset, operator experience, and postoperative safety. Methods: This parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 100 healthy children (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I, aged 6-12 years). The participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either buffered 4% articaine (n = 50) or non-buffered 2% lidocaine (n = 50). The primary outcomes were injection pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score), anesthetic onset time (s), and operator-rated difficulty (VAS). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative pain, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, cardiovascular response (heart rate), behavioral cooperation (Frankl scale), pulpal success, need for reinjection, lip or cheek biting, and delayed adverse events at one week. Results: Buffered articaine produced significantly lower injection pain (2.25 ± 0.94 vs. 3.93 ± 0.90; P < 0.001), faster anesthetic onset (71.98 ± 15.24 vs. 115.28 ± 20.04 s; P < 0.001), lower operator difficulty scores (2.27 ± 0.99 vs. 4.22 ± 0.98; P < 0.001), and reduced procedure pain (2.15 ± 0.99 vs. 3.56 ± 1.05; P < 0.001). Soft tissue anesthesia lasted significantly longer with buffered articaine (159.02 ± 19.10 vs. 137.84 ± 17.54 min; P < 0.001). Heart rate elevation during the injection was significantly attenuated in the articaine group (P = 0.0003). Pulpal success rates were comparable (84% vs. 82%; P = 1.000), and no significant between-group differences were observed in the reinjection rate, lip or cheek biting, or delayed adverse events. Conclusion: Buffered 4% articaine provides clinically superior injection comfort, faster onset, and better behavioral cooperation than non-buffered 2% lidocaine in the pediatric dental practice, with a comparable safety profile.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, LocalArticaine, BufferedLidocainePain ManagementPediatric DentistrySodium Bicarbonate

Identifiers

PMID42558346
PMCPMC13437181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.