A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Anesthetic Efficacy of Buffered Versus Non-buffered 2% Lidocaine During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and acceptability of buffered lidocaine (8.4% sodium bicarbonate and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) versus non-buffered lidocaine (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) during inferior alveolar nerve block. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients who required bilateral extractions in a single arch were included in this study. One hundred extractions were carried out, and all of the patients had nerve blocks during the procedure. We also took note of the patient's pain level as measured on a visual analog scale, as well as the start of the action, duration of postoperative analgesia, and occurrence of any problems. The duration of anesthesia was assessed by the feeling of numbness and the first sign of pain. RESULT: All the patients in both study groups reported subjective numbness of the lips and tongue. The depth of anesthesia was evaluated by pain and comfort during the procedure with a visual analog scale and showed no significant difference between the two groups. The onset of action for the pterygomandibular nerve block was 1.240.31 minutes (buffered) and 1.710.51 minutes (non-buffered). When compared, the duration of anesthesia was 327.18102.98 minutes (buffered) and 129.0826.85 minutes (non-buffered). CONCLUSION: This study concludes that the buffered solution has a faster onset of action than the non-buffered solution. Both solutions exhibit similar intraoperative efficacy. The duration of postoperative anesthesia was prolonged with buffering. Buffering also reduced pain scores during the early postoperative period.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".