Anesthetic Efficiency of Articaine Versus Lidocaine in the Extraction of Lower Third Molars: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Zhang, Aobo; Tang, Ho Man; Liu, Shaopeng; Ma, Chuan; Ma, Shixing; Zhao, Hongxia

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.020

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10,17 According to literature, articaine IANB provided more successful anesthesia than lidocaine IANB in different treatment settings other than intra-alveolar tooth extraction. 7,13 A recent study found that articaine offered anesthesia with significantly shorter onset and longer duration than lidocaine for lower molar extraction, but the authors did not mention the success/failure rate in terms of the need for additional anesthesia. 22 In the present study, articaine IANB showed significantly higher success rate than lidocaine IANB for lower molar extraction by undergraduate students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 At present, lidocaine and articaine are the two most frequently used local anesthetics in dentistry. 7 Using lidocaine, the IANBs performed by dental students were successful in 70% to 88% of cases before conducting dental treatment. 5,8 In tooth extraction setting, studies have reported successful IANBs in 50% to 61% of the operated cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10][11][12] Recent meta-analyses have provided a high quality evidence that articaine has superior anesthetic efficiency compared to lidocaine, and it could significantly increase the success rate of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis and those require lower third molar extraction. 7,13 In all previous studies that investigated the efficacy of articaine in the mandibular arch, IANBs were given by experienced dentists. No published data were found considering the success rate of articaine IANB performed by dental students and/or comparing their anesthetic achievement by articaine with that by lidocaine in oral surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Articaine improves anesthetic achievement for exodontia performed by undergraduate dental students: A clinical comparative study

Muhammad

Abdullah

Majid

2021

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose/objectives: To assess the clinical performance of undergraduate dental students in delivering inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with either articaine or lidocaine, and to compare the success rate of their IANBs between articaine and lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular molar teeth. Methods:In this clinical trial, patients were randomly distributed into 2 study groups: articaine and lidocaine groups. In each group, dental students performed IANB followed by forceps extraction of 1 mandibular molar under close supervision. The operative parameters measured included: assessment of anesthetic technique (on 10 points visual analogue scale 'VAS-10′), onset and depth of anesthesia, intra-operative pain perceived by patients and their satisfaction level (on VAS-10), and the success rate of IANB (in terms of need to additional anesthesia). Data analyses used were descriptive statistics, t-test, χ 2 test, and Pearson's correlation.Results: One-hundred sixty patients were included in the final analysis, 80 in each group. The overall students' IANB technique was assessed as good (mean score 7.3). Articaine group showed significantly higher success rate of IANB (71%) compared to (55%) in lidocaine group, (P = 0.03). Patients also reported significantly higher satisfaction scores in the articaine group (P = 0.04). There were no significant difference in the onset of action and intra-operative pain level between the 2 groups.Conclusions: Students' IANBs were generally assessed as "good." Articaine IANBs performed by undergraduate students showed significantly higher success rate than lidocaine IANBs. By using articaine, the anesthetic achievement was greater for mandibular molar extraction performed by undergraduate students.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Articaine improves anesthetic achievement for exodontia performed by undergraduate dental students: A clinical comparative study

Muhammad

Abdullah

Majid

2021

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence suggests that articaine infiltration produces better anaesthetic success as compared to lignocaine. 8,9 Research on adult patients has also indicated that single buccal infiltration injections of articaine can be used for the extraction of maxillary and mandibular teeth. 7,10 Despite the immense research, evidence on the efficacy of articaine infiltration when used for paediatric dental extractions is very limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions

Chen¹,

Xiang²,

2022

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate if articaine has better efficacy as compared to lignocaine when used for infiltration anaesthesia for primary molar extractions. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials on paediatric patients comparing the infiltration of articaine with lignocaine for extraction of primary molar were included. Pain of extraction and successful palatal/lingual anaesthesia with single buccal infiltration was evaluated. Results: Six studies were included. We found no difference in pain scores when comparing singular buccal infiltrations of articaine and lignocaine for primary molar extractions. A meta-analysis of extraction pain scores from three studies indicated no statistically significant difference between buccal infiltration of articaine vs combined buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of lignocaine. Comparing buccal with palatal/lingual infiltration of both articaine and lignocaine with data from three studies, articaine was found to significantly reduce pain scores. Conclusion: Our review encompassing a limited number of studies suggests that single buccal infiltration of articaine may have a role in primary molar extractions. Articaine may have a better anaesthetic effect compared to lignocaine but the difference may not be clinically relevant. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.4.5343 How to cite this:Chen S, Xiang J, Ji Y. Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(4):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.4.5343 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Research suggests that the higher tissue penetration property of articaine can lead to better success rates with articaine infiltration as compared to lignocaine. When used for IANB, articaine has demonstrated superior anesthetic efficiency compared to lidocaine for mandibular third molar extractions in adult patients ( 6 ). Singular buccal infiltration injections of articaine have also been successfully used for dental extractions of maxillary and mandibular teeth in adult patients ( 5 ).…”

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

Anesthetic Efficiency of Articaine Versus Lidocaine in the Extraction of Lower Third Molars: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

Articaine improves anesthetic achievement for exodontia performed by undergraduate dental students: A clinical comparative study

Articaine improves anesthetic achievement for exodontia performed by undergraduate dental students: A clinical comparative study

Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions

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