Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Anesthetic efficacy in vital asymptomatic teeth using different local anesthetics: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

  • Amy Kia Cheen Liew (Department of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) ;
  • Yi-Chun Yeh (Department of Medical Research, National Taiwan University Hospital) ;
  • Dalia Abdullah (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) ;
  • Yu-Kang Tu (Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University)
  • Received : 2020.12.25
  • Accepted : 2021.02.21
  • Published : 2021.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application. Results: The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates. Conclusions: Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from New South Bound Policy Academic Field Alliance Project, Ministry of Education, Taiwan (Grant No. 107K311).

References

  1. Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. Edinburg: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. 
  2. Sreekumar K, Bhargava D. Comparison of onset and duration of action of soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia with three volumes of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;15:195-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-011-0275-8
  3. Franz-Montan M, Silva AL, Fraceto LF, Volpato MC, Paula E, Ranali J, Groppo FC. Liposomal encapsulation improves the duration of soft tissue anesthesia but does not induce pulpal anesthesia. J Clin Anesth 2010;22:313-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.03.001
  4. Katyal V. The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2010;38:307-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.12.003
  5. Su N, Liu Y, Yang X, Shi Z, Huang Y. Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int Dent J 2014;64:96-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12087
  6. Tu YK. Use of generalized linear mixed models for network meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 2014;34:911-918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14545789
  7. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897-900. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897
  8. Zanjir M, Lighvan NL, Yarascavitch C, Beyene J, Shah PS, Azarpazhooh A. Efficacy and safety of pulpal anesthesia strategies during endodontic treatment of permanent mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Endod 2019;45:1435-1464.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.09.002
  9. Su YX, Tu YK. Statistical approaches to adjusting weights for dependent arms in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:431-440. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1304
  10. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catala-Lopez F, Gotzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777-784. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385
  11. American Association of Endodontists. AAE consensus conference recommended diagnostic terminology. J Endod 2009;35:1634.
  12. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Available from: www.handbook.cochrane.org (updated 2011 Mar). 
  13. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:98-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1044
  14. Tu YK. Using generalized linear mixed models to evaluate inconsistency within a network meta-analysis. Value Health 2015;18:1120-1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.002
  15. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101:447-459. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001302
  16. Yu-Kang T. Node-splitting generalized linear mixed models for evaluation of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Value Health 2016;19:957-963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.005
  17. Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Heels-Andsell D, Alhazzani W, Thabane L, Guyatt GH. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev 2017;6:79.
  18. Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JP, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, Salanti G. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020;17:e1003082.
  19. Aberg G, Sydnes G. Studies on the duration of local anesthesia. Effects of volume and concentration of a local anesthetic solution on the duration of dental infiltration anesthesia. Int J Oral Surg 1978;7:141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(78)80016-7
  20. Caldas CS, Bergamaschi CC, Succi GM, Motta RH, Ramacciato JC. Clinical evaluation of different ephinephrine concentration for local dental anesthesia. Rev Dor 2015;16:1-5.
  21. Costa CG, Tortamano IP, Rocha RG, Francischone CE, Tortamano N. Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration. Quintessence Int 2005;36:197-201.
  22. Evans G, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of articaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 2008;34:389-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.01.004
  23. Franz-Montan M, de Paula E, Groppo FC, Ranali J, Volpato MC. Efficacy of liposome-encapsulated 0.5% ropivacaine in maxillary dental anaesthesia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:454-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.07.010
  24. Gross R, McCartney M, Reader A, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 2007;33:1021-1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.06.003
  25. Haas DA, Harper DG, Saso MA, Young ER. Comparison of articaine and prilocaine anesthesia by infiltration in maxillary and mandibular arches. Anesth Prog 1990;37:230-237.
  26. Haas DA, Harper DG, Saso MA, Young ER. Lack of differential effect by Ultracaine (articaine) and Citanest (prilocaine) in infiltration anaesthesia. J Can Dent Assoc 1991;57:217-223.
  27. Katz S, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for maxillary infiltrations. Anesth Prog 2010;57:45-51. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-57.2.45
  28. Kennedy M, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of ropivacaine in maxillary anterior infiltration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:406-412. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.114000
  29. Krzeminski TF, Gilowski L, Wiench R, Plocica I, Kondzielnik P, Sielanczyk A. Comparison of ropivacaine and articaine with epinephrine for infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry - a randomized study. Int Endod J 2011;44:746-751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01881.x
  30. Krzeminski TF, Gilowski L, Wiench R, Plocica I, Kondzielnik P, Sielanczyk A. Comparison of ropivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine for infiltration anesthesia in dentistry. A randomized study. Am J Dent 2011;24:305-309.
  31. Kammerer PW, Seeling J, Alshihri A, Daublander M. Comparative clinical evaluation of different epinephrine concentrations in 4% articaine for dental local infiltration anesthesia. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:415-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1010-7
  32. Lawaty I, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1 :20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations. Anesth Prog 2010;57:139-144. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-57.4.139
  33. Mason R, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 2009;35:1173-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.016
  34. Mikesell A, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 2008;34:121-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.11.001
  35. Teplitsky PE, Hablichek CA, Kushneriuk JS. A comparison of bupivacaine to lidocaine with respect to duration in the maxilla and mandible. J Can Dent Assoc 1987;53:475-478.
  36. Tofoli GR, Cereda CM, Groppo FC, Volpato MC, Franz-Montan M, Ranali J, de Araujo DR, de Paula E. Efficacy of liposome-encapsulated mepivacaine for infiltrative anesthesia in volunteers. J Liposome Res 2011;21:88-94. https://doi.org/10.3109/08982104.2010.483596
  37. Wiziack Zago PM, Baroni DB, Groppo FC, de Paula E, Ranali J, Volpato MC. Anesthetic efficacy of liposomal prilocaine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia. J Liposome Res 2011;21:81-87. https://doi.org/10.3109/08982101003754393
  38. Jaber A, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, Al-Baqshi B, Kanaa MD, Meechan JG. The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations. Br Dent J 2010;209:E16.
  39. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, Meechan JG. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod 2006;32:296-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.016
  40. Martin M, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. J Endod 2011;37:588-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.01.001
  41. Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M. A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5:463-469. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.167717
  42. McEntire M, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. Anesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine versus 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar. J Endod 2011;37:450-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.007
  43. Nydegger B, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Beck M. Anesthetic comparisons of 4% concentrations of articaine, lidocaine, and prilocaine as primary buccal infiltrations of the mandibular first molar: a prospective randomized, double-blind study. J Endod 2014;40:1912-1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.08.001
  44. Robertson D, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, McCartney M. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:1104-1112. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0324
  45. Yonchak T, Reader A, Beck M, Clark K, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of infiltrations in mandibular anterior teeth. Anesth Prog 2001;48:55-60.
  46. Branco FP, Ranali J, Ambrosano GM, Volpato MC. A double-blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:442-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.06.005
  47. Dagher FB, Yared GM, Machtou P. An evaluation of 2% lidocaine with different concentrations of epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1997;23:178-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80271-3
  48. Donaldson D, James-Perdok L, Craig BJ, Derkson GD, Richardson AS. A comparison of Ultracaine DS (articaine HCl) and Citanest forte (prilocaine HCl) in maxillary infiltration and mandibular nerve block. J Can Dent Assoc 1987;53:38-42.
  49. Ernberg M, Kopp S. Ropivacaine for dental anesthesia: a dose-finding study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1004-1010. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.34409
  50. Fernandez C, Reader A, Beck M, Nusstein J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 2005;31:499-503. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000167395.61075.38
  51. Hinkley SA, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. An evaluation of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 1991;38:84-89.
  52. McLean C, Reader A, Beck M, Meryers WJ. An evaluation of 4% prilocaine and 3% mepivacaine compared with 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1993;19:146-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80510-8
  53. Mikesell P, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 2005;31:265-270. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000140576.36513.cb
  54. Moore PA, Boynes SG, Hersh EV, DeRossi SS, Sollecito TP, Goodson JM, Leonel JS, Floros C, Peterson C, Hutcheson M. The anesthetic efficacy of 4 percent articaine 1:200,000 epinephrine: two controlled clinical trials. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1572-1581. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0093
  55. Petersen JK, Luck H, Kristensen F, Mikkelsen L. A comparison of four commonly used local analgesics. Int J Oral Surg 1977;6:51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(77)80059-8
  56. Tortamano IP, Siviero M, Lee S, Sampaio RM, Simone JL, Rocha RG. Onset and duration period of pulpal anesthesia of articaine and lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block. Braz Dent J 2013;24:371-374. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302072
  57. Tofoli GR, Ramacciato JC, de Oliveira PC, Volpato MC, Groppo FC, Ranali J. Comparison of effectiveness of 4% articaine associated with 1: 100,000 or 1: 200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 2003;50:164-168.
  58. Vreeland DL, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W, Weaver J. An evaluation of volumes and concentrations of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1989;15:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80091-3
  59. Wali M, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J. Prospective, randomized single-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 milliliters of 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 2010;36:1459-1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.05.012
  60. Yared GM, Dagher FB. Evaluation of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1997;23:575-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81125-8
  61. Tsuchiya H. Dental anesthesia in the presence of inflammation: pharmacological mechanisms for the reduced efficacy of local anesthetics. Int J Clin Anesthesiol 2016;4:1059. 
  62. Kung J, McDonagh M, Sedgley CM. Does articaine provide an advantage over lidocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2015;41:1784-1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001
  63. Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Suresh A, Veettil SK, Bhatia S, Setzer FC. Efficacy of local anaesthetic solutions on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int Endod J 2019;52:779-789. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13072
  64. Naci H, Salcher-Konrad M, Kesselheim AS, Wieseler B, Rochaix L, Redberg RF, Salanti G, Jackson E, Garner S, Stroup TS, Cipriani A. Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval. Lancet 2020;395:986-997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33178-2
  65. Reader A. Taking the pain out of restorative dentistry and endodontics: current thoughts and treatment options to help patients achieve profound anesthesia. Endodontics: Colleagues for Excellence. Winter; Chicago, IL: American Association of Endodontists; 2009. p.1-8.
  66. Malamed SF, 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. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0152
  67. Latham JL, Martin SN. Infiltrative anesthesia in office practice. Am Fam Physician 2014;89:956-962.