Huei Jinn Tong1, Fatma Salem Alzahrani2, Yu Fan Sim3, Jinous F Tahmassebi2, Monty Duggal1. 1. Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, numerous reviews and studies have awarded articaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic (LA) a superior reputation, with outcomes of different studies demonstrating a general tendency for articaine hydrochloride to outperform lidocaine hydrochloride for dental treatment. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear agreement on which LA solution is more efficacious in dental treatment for children. There is no previous publication systematically reviewing and summarising the current best evidence with respect to the success rates of LA solutions in children. AIMS: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine, used in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID; 1950 to June 2017), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost; 1982 to June 2017), EMBASE (OVID; 1980 to June 2017), SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge; 1900 to June 2017), key journals, and previous review bibliographies through June 2017. Original research studies that compared articaine with lidocaine for dental treatment in children were included. Methodological quality assessment and assessment of risk of bias were carried out for each of the included studies. RESULTS: Electronic searching identified 525 publications. Following the primary and secondary assessment process, six randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures (SMD = 0.06, P-value = 0.614), and no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients (RR = 1.10, P-value = 0.863). Yet, patients reported significantly less pain post-procedure following articaine injections (SMD = 0.37, P-value = 0.013). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the reporting of outcomes among studies, with the overall quality of majority of studies being at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence suggesting that both articaine as infiltration and lidocaine IAD nerve blocks presented the same efficacy when used for routine dental treatments, with no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures. Yet, significantly less pain post-procedure was reported following articaine injections. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients.
BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, numerous reviews and studies have awarded articaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic (LA) a superior reputation, with outcomes of different studies demonstrating a general tendency for articaine hydrochloride to outperform lidocaine hydrochloride for dental treatment. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear agreement on which LA solution is more efficacious in dental treatment for children. There is no previous publication systematically reviewing and summarising the current best evidence with respect to the success rates of LA solutions in children. AIMS: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine, used in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID; 1950 to June 2017), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost; 1982 to June 2017), EMBASE (OVID; 1980 to June 2017), SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge; 1900 to June 2017), key journals, and previous review bibliographies through June 2017. Original research studies that compared articaine with lidocaine for dental treatment in children were included. Methodological quality assessment and assessment of risk of bias were carried out for each of the included studies. RESULTS: Electronic searching identified 525 publications. Following the primary and secondary assessment process, six randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures (SMD = 0.06, P-value = 0.614), and no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients (RR = 1.10, P-value = 0.863). Yet, patients reported significantly less pain post-procedure following articaine injections (SMD = 0.37, P-value = 0.013). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the reporting of outcomes among studies, with the overall quality of majority of studies being at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence suggesting that both articaine as infiltration and lidocaineIAD nerve blocks presented the same efficacy when used for routine dental treatments, with no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures. Yet, significantly less pain post-procedure was reported following articaine injections. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients.