Efficacy of articaine vs lignocaine in maxillary and mandibular infiltration and block anesthesia in the dental treatments of adults: A systematic review and meta ‐analysis

AbstractThe aim of the present systematic review and meta ‐analysis was to address the following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question: Is the efficacy of articaine better than lignocaine in adults requiring dental treatment? Four percent articaine was compared with 2% lignocaine for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block a nesthesia, and with the principal outcome measures of anesthetic success. Using RevMan software, the weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared using a random‐effects model. For combined studies, articaine was more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than lignocaine (N = 18, odds ratio [OR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.56,P  < 0.00001,I2  =  32%). Maxillary and mandibular infiltration studies showed obvious superiority of articaine to lignocaine (N = 8, OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.51‐4.15,P  = 0.0004,I2  =  41%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lignocaine (N = 5, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.88‐3.23,P  = 0.11,I2  =  19%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies, articaine was superior to lignocaine (N = 14, OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.72,P  < 0.0001,I2  =  32%), with further subgroup analysis showing significant differences in both mandibular block anesthesia (N = 11, OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19‐2.03,P  = 0.001),I2  =  0%) and mandibular infiltration (N = 3, OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.62‐...
Source: Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry - Category: Dentistry Authors: Tags: REVIEW ARTICLE Source Type: research