Advertisement

Does Articaine Provide an Advantage over Lidocaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Published:August 17, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001

      Highlights

      • Systematic review was conducted comparing articaine and lidocaine.
      • Meta-analysis restricted to patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
      • No difference for mandibular blocks or maxillary infiltrations.
      • Articaine is superior for supplementary infiltration following mandibular block.

      Abstract

      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.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Endodontics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. AAE Consensus Conference Recommended Diagnostic Terminology.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 1634
        • Segura-Egea J.J.
        • Cisneros-Cabello R.
        • Llamas-Carreras J.M.
        • Velasco-Ortega E.
        Pain associated with root canal treatment.
        Int Endod J. 2009; 42: 614-620
        • Fleury A.A.
        Local anesthesia failure in endodontic therapy: the acute inflammation factor.
        Compendium. 1990; 11 (212, 214 passim): 210
        • Quint J.H.
        The failure of local anesthesia in acute inflammation.
        Br Dent J. 1981; 151: 214
        • Wallace J.A.
        • Michanowicz A.E.
        • Mundell R.D.
        • Wilson E.G.
        A pilot study of the clinical problem of regionally anesthetizing the pulp of an acutely inflamed mandibular molar.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1985; 59: 517-521
        • Wong M.
        • Lytle W.R.
        A comparison of anxiety levels associated with root canal therapy and oral surgery treatment.
        J Endod. 1991; 17: 461-465
        • Malamed S.F.
        Local anesthetics: dentistry's most important drugs, clinical update 2006.
        J Calif Dent Assoc. 2006; 34: 971-976
        • Gaffen A.S.
        • Haas D.A.
        Survey of local anesthetic use by Ontario dentists.
        J Can Dent Assoc. 2009; 75: 649
        • Corbett I.P.
        • Ramacciato J.C.
        • Groppo F.C.
        • Meechan J.G.
        A survey of local anaesthetic use among general dental practitioners in the UK attending postgraduate courses on pain control.
        Br Dent J. 2005; 199 (discussion 78): 784-787
        • Malamed S.F.
        • Gagnon S.
        • Leblanc D.
        Articaine hydrochloride: a study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132: 177-185
        • Pogrel M.A.
        Permanent nerve damage from inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a current update.
        J Calif Dent Assoc. 2012; 40: 795-797
        • Oertel R.
        • Rahn R.
        • Kirch W.
        Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine.
        Clin Pharm. 1997; 33: 417-425
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Rosenberg W.M.
        • Gray J.A.
        • et al.
        Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72
      2. Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 (Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed August 11, 2015)
        • Booth A.
        • Clarke M.
        • Dooley G.
        • et al.
        The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews.
        Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 2
        • Stewart L.
        • Moher D.
        • Shekelle P.
        Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense.
        Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 7
        • Xiao J.L.
        • Li Y.L.
        • Ma B.
        • et al.
        Anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis: a meta-analysis.
        Chin J Evid Based Med. 2010; 10: 1058-1062
        • Katyal V.
        The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis.
        J Dent. 2010; 38: 307-317
        • Brandt R.G.
        • Anderson P.F.
        • McDonald N.J.
        • et al.
        The pulpal anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in dentistry: a meta-analysis.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142: 493-504
        • Vardell E.
        • Malloy M.
        Joanna briggs institute: an evidence-based practice database.
        Med Ref Serv Q. 2013; 32: 434-442
        • Institute of Medicine of the National Academes
        Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews.
        2011 (Available at:) (Accessed May 13, 2015)
        • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
        Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care.
        2009 (Available at:) (Accessed May 13, 2015)
        • Lindsey W.T.
        • Olin B.R.
        PubMed searches: overview and strategies for clinicians.
        Nutr Clin Pract. 2013; 28: 165-176
        • Burnham J.F.
        Scopus database: a review.
        Biomed Digit Libr. 2006; 3: 1
        • Malamed S.F.
        Handbook of Local Anesthesia.
        6th ed. Elsevier Mosby, St Louis, MO2012
        • Reader A.
        • Nusstein J.
        • Drum M.
        Successful Local Anesthesia for Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics.
        Quintessence, Hanover, IL2011
        • Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group
        Data extraction template.
        2013 (Available at:) (Accessed May 13, 2015)
        • Ahmad Z.H.
        • Ravikumar H.
        • Karale R.
        • et al.
        Study of the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block using articaine in irreversible pulpitis.
        J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014; 15: 71-74
        • Dou L.
        • Luo J.
        • Yang D.
        Anaesthetic efficacy of supplemental lingual infiltration of mandibular molars after inferior alveolar nerve block plus buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        Int Endod J. 2013; 46: 660-665
        • Kanaa M.D.
        • Whitworth J.M.
        • Meechan J.G.
        A prospective randomized trial of different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth.
        J Endod. 2012; 38: 421-425
        • Monteiro M.R.
        • Groppo F.C.
        • Haiter-Neto F.
        • et al.
        4% articaine buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for emergency root canal treatment in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpits: a randomized clinical study.
        Int Endod J. 2015; 48: 145-152
        • Fan S.
        • Chen W.L.
        • Pan C.B.
        • et al.
        Anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block plus buccal infiltration or periodontal ligament injections with articaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: e89-e93
        • Singla M.
        • Subbiya A.
        • Aggarwal V.
        • et al.
        Comparison of the anaesthetic efficacy of different volumes of 4% articaine (1.8 and 3.6 mL) as supplemental buccal infiltration after failed inferior alveolar nerve block.
        Int Endod J. 2015; 48: 103-108
        • Rosenberg P.A.
        • Amin K.G.
        • Zibari Y.
        • Lin L.M.
        Comparison of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic.
        J Endod. 2007; 33: 403-405
        • Aggarwal V.
        • Jain A.
        • Kabi D.
        Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of articaine and lidocaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 925-929
        • Ashraf H.
        • Kazem M.
        • Dianat O.
        • Noghrehkar F.
        Efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in block and infiltration anesthesia administered in teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
        J Endod. 2013; 39: 6-10
        • Claffey E.
        • Reader A.
        • Nusstein J.
        • et al.
        Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        J Endod. 2004; 30: 568-571
        • Kanaa M.D.
        • Whitworth J.M.
        • Meechan J.G.
        A comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving pulpal anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
        J Endod. 2012; 38: 279-282
        • Poorni S.
        • Veniashok B.
        • Senthilkumar A.D.
        • et al.
        Anesthetic efficacy of four percent articaine for pulpal anesthesia by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial.
        J Endod. 2011; 37: 1603-1607
        • Rogers B.S.
        • Botero T.M.
        • McDonald N.J.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine as a supplemental buccal infiltration in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
        J Endod. 2014; 40: 753-758
        • Sherman M.G.
        • Flax M.
        • Namerow K.
        • Murray P.E.
        Anesthetic efficacy of the Gow-Gates injection and maxillary infiltration with articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis.
        J Endod. 2008; 34: 656-659
        • Sood R.
        • Hans M.K.
        • Shetty S.
        Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        J Clin Exp Dent. 2014; 6: e520-e523
        • Srinivasan N.
        • Kavitha M.
        • Loganathan C.S.
        • Padmini G.
        Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107: 133-136
        • Tortamano I.P.
        • Siviero M.
        • Costa C.G.
        • et al.
        A comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 165-168
        • Nusstein J.M.
        • Reader A.
        • Drum M.
        Local anesthesia strategies for the patient with a “hot” tooth.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 237-247
        • Yapp K.E.
        • Hopcraft M.S.
        • Parashos P.
        Articaine: a review of the literature.
        Br Dent J. 2011; 210: 323-329
        • Dagher F.B.
        • Yared G.M.
        • Machtou P.
        An evaluation of 2% lidocaine with different concentrations of epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block.
        J Endod. 1997; 23: 178-180