P Stirrup1, S Crean2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, FY3 2NR. 2. School of Medicine in Dentistry, Allen Building, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE.
Abstract
Aims: This mini systematic review seeks to analyse the available literature and determine if a 4% articaine solution poses a greater risk of inferior alveolar and/or lingual nerve damage compared to that of 2% lidocaine, when administered for an inferior alveolar nerve block. Results: After a mini systematic review of the published literature, seven suitable studies were identified: one double-blind random controlled trial (DBRCT) and six retrospective cohort studies. The DBRCT and two of the cohort studies concluded that 4% articaine poses no greater risk of nerve damage. The remaining four cohort studies suggested that caution should be exhibited when using a 4% local anaesthetic solution rather than a 2% solution. However, these studies also concluded that no evidence exists to explain the reasons for their results. Discussion and conclusion: The included articles present no conclusive evidence to suggest that 4% articaine causes more nerve damage than 2% lidocaine, although some authors advise caution when using this agent. All studies conclude that further quality research is required, and it is therefore suggested that dental practitioners exhibit caution when choosing to use 4% articaine in an inferior alveolar nerve block until further scientific research has been performed.
Aims: This mini systematic review seeks to analyse the available literature and determine if a 4% articaine solution poses a greater risk of inferior alveolar and/or lingual nerve damage compared to that of 2% lidocaine, when administered for an inferior alveolar nerve block. Results: After a mini systematic review of the published literature, seven suitable studies were identified: one double-blind random controlled trial (DBRCT) and six retrospective cohort studies. The DBRCT and two of the cohort studies concluded that 4% articaine poses no greater risk of nerve damage. The remaining four cohort studies suggested that caution should be exhibited when using a 4% local anaesthetic solution rather than a 2% solution. However, these studies also concluded that no evidence exists to explain the reasons for their results. Discussion and conclusion: The included articles present no conclusive evidence to suggest that 4% articaine causes more nerve damage than 2% lidocaine, although some authors advise caution when using this agent. All studies conclude that further quality research is required, and it is therefore suggested that dental practitioners exhibit caution when choosing to use 4% articaine in an inferior alveolar nerve block until further scientific research has been performed.
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18