Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42889235›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2026

Comparison of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection and buccal infiltration as single-injection anesthetic techniques for orthodontic extraction of maxillary first premolars: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.

Abdul Ahad, Ali Asger Nakib, Manjula Marandi, Mrinalini, Rajat Sharma

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

5 authors.

Abdul AhadDepartment of Dentistry, Medinirai Medical College, Palamu, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6963-9481
Ali Asger NakibDepartment of Dentistry, Bankura Sammilani Medical College, Bankura, West Bengal, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9586-7327
Manjula MarandiDepartment of Dentistry, Medinirai Medical College, Palamu, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9148-638X
MrinaliniDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Rachna Dental College, SDS, MRIIRS, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0540-531X
Rajat SharmaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manav Rachna Dental College, SDS, MRIIRS, Faridabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-9529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pain and anxiety regarding local anesthetic injections are common concerns during orthodontic tooth extraction. Single-injection anesthetic techniques may reduce patient discomfort while maintaining adequate pain control by eliminating the need for separate buccal and palatal injections. This study compared the anesthetic efficacy, pain perception, onset and duration of anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia linked to anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection versus buccal infiltration for maxillary first premolar extraction. Methods: This assessor-blinded randomized split-mouth clinical trial enrolled 42 orthodontic patients (mean age, 18.5 ± 3.12 years; range, 13-24 years) requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars. The participants received an AMSA injection and buccal infiltration in the contralateral quadrant during two visits, spaced 10 days apart. Both techniques utilized 1.2 mL of 4% articaine with adrenaline (1:100,000) via a 30-gauge needle. The outcomes included anesthetic success, pain during injection and extraction assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), onset and duration of anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia. Anesthetic success was defined as completion of extraction without supplemental anesthesia. Supplemental anesthesia was administered when intraoperative pain exceeded 44 mm on the VAS, and the primary anesthetic technique was classified as unsuccessful. McNemar's test and the paired Student's t-test were used for statistical comparisons. Results: Anesthetic success rates were 85.7% for AMSA injection and 78.6% for buccal infiltration, with no significant difference (P = 0.58; matched OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.52-4.92). AMSA injection produced a significantly faster onset and longer duration of palatal anesthesia, whereas buccal infiltration produced a significantly faster onset and longer duration of buccal anesthesia (P < 0.001). AMSA injection caused greater injection-related pain (P < 0.001; Cohen's dz = 0.68), but lower extraction-related pain (P < 0.001; Cohen's dz = 0.82). Buccal infiltration achieved a longer postoperative analgesia duration (P = 0.006; Cohen's dz = 0.57). Conclusions: Both techniques are effective single-injection options for maxillary first premolar extraction. AMSA provided superior intraoperative comfort and palatal anesthesia, but inflicts greater injection discomfort, while buccal infiltration offered greater injection comfort and longer postoperative analgesia.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalAnesthesia, LocalAnterior Middle Superior Alveolar InjectionArticaineNerve BlockTooth Extraction

Identifiers

PMID42889235
PMCPMC13669301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.