Division of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
J Endod. 2019 Oct;45(10):1175-1183.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.06.008.
This systematic review compared the anesthetic efficacy between Gow-Gates (GG), Vazirani-Akinosi (VA), and mental incisive (MI) nerve blocks (NBs) with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).
Studies were identified from 4 electronic databases up to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success rate of GG, VA, and MI NBs with IANBs in mandibular premolars and molars with irreversible pulpitis were included. The quality of selected RCTs was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and random errors were evaluated by TSA. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Five RCTs were included; 2 of them were classified as low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in the anesthesia success rate compared between GG and IA NBs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.48; I = 0%). Similarly, no difference was evident between MINB and IANB (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; I = 0%). Overall, the cumulative success rates for the 3 anesthetic techniques were low. TSA showed a lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analysis between GG NB and IANB. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach evaluation showed that the evidence was of moderate quality for GG NB and IANB compared with low quality for MI and IA NBs. Because only 1 study was available comparing VA NB and IANB, a meta-analysis was not performed. The adverse effect associated with MI NB was swelling, whereas it was prolonged numbness for IANB.
GG NB and IANB showed similar anesthetic efficacy compared with IANB in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the success rates for each technique indicate the need for supplemental anesthesia. Further well-designed RCTs evaluating different anesthetic techniques with and without supplemental injection are required to provide stronger evidence.
本系统评价通过荟萃分析和试验序贯分析(TSA)比较了 Gow-Gates(GG)、Vazirani-Akinosi(VA)和精神切迹(MI)神经阻滞(NBs)与下牙槽神经阻滞(IANBs)在下颌有不可逆牙髓炎的前磨牙和磨牙中的麻醉效果。
研究人员从 4 个电子数据库中检索了截至 2019 年 6 月的研究。纳入了比较 GG、VA 和 MI NB 与 IANB 在有不可逆牙髓炎的下颌前磨牙和磨牙中麻醉成功率的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用修订后的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估所选 RCT 的质量。计算风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)的随机效应荟萃分析,并通过 TSA 评估随机误差。使用推荐评估、制定和评估分级方法评估证据质量。
纳入了 5 项 RCT,其中 2 项被归类为低偏倚风险。GG 和 IANB 的麻醉成功率无显著差异(RR=1.10;95%CI,0.82-1.48;I=0%)。同样,MINB 和 IANB 之间也没有差异(RR=1.15;95%CI,0.97-1.36;I=0%)。总的来说,这 3 种麻醉技术的累积成功率都较低。TSA 表明,GG NB 与 IANB 之间的荟萃分析结果缺乏确凿证据。推荐评估、制定和评估分级方法评估表明,与 MI 和 IANB 相比,GG NB 和 IANB 的证据质量为中等,而 MI 和 IANB 的证据质量为低。由于只有 1 项研究比较了 VA NB 和 IANB,因此未进行荟萃分析。与 IANB 相比,MI NB 的不良反应是肿胀,而 IANB 的不良反应是长时间麻木。
GG NB 与 IANB 在下颌有不可逆牙髓炎的牙齿中具有与 IANB 相似的麻醉效果。然而,每种技术的成功率表明需要补充麻醉。需要进一步设计良好的 RCT,评估有无补充注射的不同麻醉技术,以提供更强有力的证据。