TY - JOUR
T1 - Does articaine provide an advantage over lidocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Kung, Jason
AU - McDonagh, Marian
AU - Sedgley, Christine M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Dr Tian Xia for the translation of an article from Chinese to English. This study was supported by the OHSU Department of Endodontology Les Morgan Endowment Fund and a resident research grant from the American Association of Endodontists Foundation . The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Association of Endodontists.
PY - 2015/11
Y1 - 2015/11
N2 - Introduction Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: in adults with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis who are undergoing endodontic treatment, what is the comparative efficacy of articaine compared with lidocaine in reducing pain and incidence of adverse events? Methods A protocol was prepared and registered on PROSPERO. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov by using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion and quality. Weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. Results Two hundred seventy-five studies were initially identified from the search; 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. For combined studies, articaine was more likely than lidocaine to achieve successful anesthesia (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.47; P =.0006; I2 = 40%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lidocaine (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 0.50-31.62; P =.19; I2 = 59%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies articaine was superior to lidocaine (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.40-3.44; P =.0006; I2 = 30%), with further subgroup analysis showing no difference for mandibular block anesthesia (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.87-2.38; P =.16; I2 = 0%). When used for supplemental infiltration after successful mandibular block anesthesia, articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.97-6.39; P <.0001; I2 = 9%). There were no reports of adverse events. Conclusions This systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials provides level 1 evidence to support the use of articaine for patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. There is a significant advantage to using articaine over lidocaine for supplementary infiltration after mandibular block anesthesia but no advantage when used for mandibular block anesthesia alone or for maxillary infiltration.
AB - Introduction Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: in adults with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis who are undergoing endodontic treatment, what is the comparative efficacy of articaine compared with lidocaine in reducing pain and incidence of adverse events? Methods A protocol was prepared and registered on PROSPERO. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov by using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion and quality. Weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. Results Two hundred seventy-five studies were initially identified from the search; 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. For combined studies, articaine was more likely than lidocaine to achieve successful anesthesia (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.47; P =.0006; I2 = 40%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lidocaine (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 0.50-31.62; P =.19; I2 = 59%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies articaine was superior to lidocaine (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.40-3.44; P =.0006; I2 = 30%), with further subgroup analysis showing no difference for mandibular block anesthesia (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.87-2.38; P =.16; I2 = 0%). When used for supplemental infiltration after successful mandibular block anesthesia, articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.97-6.39; P <.0001; I2 = 9%). There were no reports of adverse events. Conclusions This systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials provides level 1 evidence to support the use of articaine for patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. There is a significant advantage to using articaine over lidocaine for supplementary infiltration after mandibular block anesthesia but no advantage when used for mandibular block anesthesia alone or for maxillary infiltration.
KW - Articaine
KW - carticaine
KW - irreversible pulpitis
KW - lidocaine
KW - local anesthesia
KW - meta-analysis
KW - symptomatic irreversible pulpitis
KW - systematic review
KW - ultracaine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946484829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946484829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001
DO - 10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26293174
AN - SCOPUS:84946484829
SN - 0099-2399
VL - 41
SP - 1784
EP - 1794
JO - Journal of Endodontics
JF - Journal of Endodontics
IS - 11
ER -