Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine <i>versus</i> lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tong, Huei Jinn; Alzahrani, Fatma Salem; Sim, Yu Fan; Tahmassebi, J. F.; Duggal, M. S.

doi:10.1111/ipd.12363

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11 A subsequent 2018 study found that there is no difference between articaine and lidocaine in frequencies of anaesthetic-related adverse events in children. 83 Adverse effects. Paraesthesia associated with dental anaesthesia is defined as numbness or tingling of the mouth and face.…”

Section: Overview Of Previous Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Previous Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…performed a meta-analysis and reported significant discrepancies in the expression of results as well as a high risk of bias in children's studies. More accurate methodologies, including better standardization of reporting outcomes that provide less heterogeneous data for meta-analysis, are needed [12]. Tirupathi et al…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine compared to routine inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial

Bahrololoomi

Rezaei

2021

J Dent Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars. Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception. Results: The independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05). Conclusion:The articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.

show abstract

“…The use of articaine has also received attention in pediatric dentistry, albeit in a limited manner. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of six studies, Tong et al ( 7 ) have suggested equal efficacy of articaine and lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures. Contrastingly, in another recent review, Taneja et al ( 8 ) have indicated that articaine may have better efficacy as compared to lignocaine in pediatric patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu²,

Zhang³

2021

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to pool evidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures. Material and Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reporting the success of anesthesia and/or pain during treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Seven RCTs were included. Pooled analysis of five studies indicated no statistically significant difference in the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%, p =0.98). Meta-analysis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedure with buccal infiltration of articaine or IANB with lignocaine (SMD: 0.62; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.12; I2=88%, p =0.10). Conclusions Evidence suggests that buccal infiltration of articaine is a viable alternative to IANB with lignocaine in pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendency of higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine. Key words: Lignocaine, articaine, primary dentition, children, molars.

show abstract

Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine compared to routine inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About