Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To comprehensively review the existing studies of articaine in dentistry and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome question: “Is articaine a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for routine dental treatment compared to lidocaine?”
Methods
Database searches were conducted in Medline Ovid, Medline Pubmed, Scopus, Emcare, Proquest and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were all existing English, human, randomised controlled trials of interventions involving 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis using Cochrane Review Manager 5 software. Anaesthetic success odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.
Results
Articaine had a higher likelihood of achieving anaesthetic success than lidocaine overall and in all subgroup analyses with varying degrees of significance. Overall (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.50, 3.15, I2 = 62%) articaine had 2.17 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P < 0.0001). For mandibular blocks (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.98, I2 = 0%) articaine had 1.5 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.004). For all infiltrations, maxillary and mandibular (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.61, 4.79, I2 = 66%) articaine had 2.78 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.0002). None of the studies reported any major local anaesthetic-related adverse effects as a result of the interventions.
Conclusions
Articaine is a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for all routine dental procedures in patients of all ages, and more likely to achieve successful anaesthesia than lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Neither anaesthetic has a higher association with anaesthetic-related adverse effects.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference101 articles.
1. Carr, A. B. Systematic reviews of the literature: the overview and meta-analysis. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 46, 79–86 (2002).
2. Leucht, S. et al. Network meta-analyses should be the highest level of evidence in treatment guidelines. Eur. Arch. Psychiatr. Clin. Neurosci. 266, 477–480 (2016).
3. Higgins, J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6th edn (Cochrane, 2019). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
4. Winther, J. E. & Patirupanusara, B. Evaluation of carticaine—a new local analgesic. Int. J. Oral. Surg. 3, 422–427 (1974).
5. Oertel, R., Rahn, R. & Kirch, W. Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 33, 417–425 (1997).
Cited by
29 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献