English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives  To comprehensively review the existing studies of articaine in dentistry and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome question: “Is articaine a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for routine dental treatment compared to lidocaine?”    Methods  Database searches were conducted in Medline Ovid, Medline Pubmed, Scopus, Emcare, Proquest and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were all existing English, human, randomised controlled trials of interventions involving 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis using Cochrane Review Manager 5 software. Anaesthetic success odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.    Results  Articaine had a higher likelihood of achieving anaesthetic success than lidocaine overall and in all subgroup analyses with varying degrees of significance. Overall (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.50, 3.15,  I  2  = 62%) articaine had 2.17 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine ( P  < 0.0001). For mandibular blocks (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.98,  I  2  = 0%) articaine had 1.5 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine ( P  = 0.004). For all infiltrations, maxillary and mandibular (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.61, 4.79,  I  2  = 66%) articaine had 2.78 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine ( P  = 0.0002). None of the studies reported any major local anaesthetic-related adverse effects as a result of the interventions.    Conclusions  Articaine is a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for all routine dental procedures in patients of all ages, and more likely to achieve successful anaesthesia than lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Neither anaesthetic has a higher association with anaesthetic-related adverse effects.

bdj open

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment