Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Azhar University, Gaza, Palestine.
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Palestine, Gaza, Palestine.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022 Jun;22(2):101712. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101712. Epub 2022 Mar 6.
To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models.
Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias.
4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.
比较颊侧浸润(BI)4%阿替卡因与 4%阿替卡因或 2%利多卡因下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)用于有症状不可复性牙髓炎下颌磨牙的麻醉效果。
使用 MESH 术语和特定关键词在 PubMed、Cochrane、Web of Science、Scopus 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 进行检索。纳入的文章为随机对照试验(RCT),比较了 4%阿替卡因 BI 与传统 IANB 在牙髓麻醉效果和成功率方面的差异。根据 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具对纳入研究进行质量评估。使用固定或随机效应模型对研究进行定量评估。
在 756 篇文章中,纳入了 5 项 RCT 研究,共 500 名患者:4%阿替卡因 BI 组 231 名,2%利多卡因 IANB 组 150 名,4%阿替卡因 IANB 组 119 名。我们的荟萃分析结果表明,接受 4%阿替卡因 BI 麻醉的患者与接受 2%利多卡因 IANB 麻醉的患者成功率相似[合并 RD:0.14(95%CI,-0.01 至 0.29);P=0.08]。与 4%阿替卡因 IANB 相比,差异也无统计学意义[RD:-0.01(95%CI,-0.13 至 0.11);P=0.86]。接受 4%阿替卡因 BI 麻醉的患者与 IANB(4%阿替卡因或 2%利多卡因)相比,疼痛评分相似[合并 MD:-0.14(95%CI,-0.38 至 0.11);P=0.27]。关于质量评估,3 项研究被认为具有低偏倚风险,1 项研究存在不确定的偏倚风险,1 项研究具有高偏倚风险。
4%阿替卡因 BI 在缓解疼痛和成功率方面与 2%利多卡因 IANB 或 4%阿替卡因 IANB 相比结果相似。然而,由于纳入研究数量有限且样本量较小,这些发现应谨慎考虑,需要进一步的研究来证实我们的发现。