Table 3.

Characteristics and quality assessment of the included study with low risk of bias

Author year, country	Study design	Population, patient characteristics	Intervention	Control	Method for evaluation	Risk of bias, comments	Results
Arrow (2012), Australia	RCT Parallel design for LA technique: each participant was administered the analgesic using only one LA technique Split mouth for LA agents: each participant was administered both types of analgesic on separate occasions Study terminated after interim analysis at the accrual of the first 50 patients by DSMC	57 childrena Mean age 12.4 years Treated by 6 clinicians from 5 clinics Dental treatment: non-urgent restorative treatment of contralateral teeth in mandible (lower first or second permanent molars, or second primary molars)	IANB: N = 29b Males: 13 Females: 16 Mean age: 11.9 years Articaine 4% + 1:100 000 adrenaline: N = 57 Mean age: 12.4 years Males: 10 Females: 19	BI: N = 28 Males: 8 Females: 20 Mean age: 12.9 years Lidocaine 2% + 1:80 000 adrenaline: N = 57 Mean age: 12.4 years Males: 11 Females: 17	Faces Pain Scalec after treatment	Technique: Low Power calculation Randomisation well described Published study protocol Patient nor clinician blinded for technique	Technique: IANB vs. BI: no/mild pain: 45 vs. 32 Moderate/severe pain: 11 vs. 22 p = 0.02 Chi square test
						LA agent: Low Power calculation Randomisation well described Published study protocol Patient and clinician blinded for LA agent	LA agent: articaine 4% vs. lidocaine 2%: no/mild pain: 40 vs. 37 moderate/ severe pain: 15 vs. 18 p = 0.53 Chi square test

DSMC data and safety monitoring committee, IANB inferior alveolar block injection, BI buccal infiltration

^a Originally designed to include 350 children in two arms

^b = 1 failed to attend visit 2

^c Hicks et al. (2001)