Efficacy of eutectic topical anesthesia in stainless steel crown procedures for primary molars: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior literature highlights the importance of local anesthesia (LA) for stainless steel crown (SSC) preparation and placement. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a eutectic mixture of local anesthesia (EMLA), a topical anesthesia, for this purpose remains unexplored. AIM: The study evaluated the effectiveness of two EMLA application methods during SSC preparation and placement. DESIGN: Eighty-four children between 4 and 8 years of age were randomly allocated to three intervention groups. Group A received EMLA applied supragingivally, Group B received a gingival retraction cord impregnated with EMLA (GRC_EMLA), and Group C (control) received LA. Pain was recorded using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale (WBFPS) and Children Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) at three time intervals. RESULTS: Control had highest mean pain scores at the first time interval in both maxillary and mandibular arches, followed by Group B and Group A, with statistically significant p-values (p = .00, p < .05). After preparation and placement, all three groups had low mean pain scores, with no statistically significant differences. Group A had minimal pain scores at all three time intervals, although not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: EMLA is a potent topical anesthetic and can be used as an alternative to LA for conventional SSC preparation and placement in primary molars.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".