ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Evaluation of Articaine 4% Versus Mepivacaine 2% for Surgery of Molars Thirds: Clinical Trial.
The extraction of third molars, a frequent treatment in clinical dental practice, can lead patients to painful symptoms during and after surgery. The dental surgeon must correctly indicate the need for extraction and also provide patients who need this treatment greater comfort and control of pain in the trans and postoperative period. Thus, it is necessary to use an effective local anesthetic favoring the factors inherent to the postoperative and achieving good treatment results.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Comparative study on the anesthetic efficacy between Articaine 4% and Lidocaine 2% in blocking the included lower third molars.#411567
- Articaine 4% Versus Lidocaine 2% for Local Anesthesia of MIH-affected Maxillary Molars#846484
- Articaine Efficacy and Safety for 3 Years Old Children#1411030
- Supplemental Postoperative Bupivacaine Following Non-Surgical Endodontic Treatment#1059291
- Intra- Versus Extraarticular Injection of Ropivacaine in Total Knee Arthroplasty#1172928
Record · ID 1452528
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive