The effect of buffering on pain and duration of local anesthetic in the face: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acidity of lidocaine preparations is believed to contribute to the pain of local anesthetic injection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of buffering lidocaine on the pain of injection and duration of anesthetic effect. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized trial involving 44 healthy volunteers was conducted. The upper lip was injected with a solution of: lidocaine 1% (Xylocaine, AstraZeneca, Canada, Inc) with epinephrine; and lidocaine 1% with epinephrine and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. Volunteers reported pain of injection and duration of anesthetic effect. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants found the unbuffered solution to be more painful. Fifteen participants found the buffered solution to be more painful; the difference was not statistically significant. Twenty-one volunteers reported duration of anesthetic effect. The buffered solution provided longer anesthetic effect than the unbuffered solution (P=0.004). CONCLUSION: Although buffering increased the duration of lidocaine's anesthetic effect in this particular model, a decrease in the pain of the injection was not demonstrated, likely due to limitations of the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".