BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a systematic review that addresses the following population, intervention, comparison, outcome question: "In adults requiring dental therapy with pulpally involved teeth, what is the comparative efficacy of buffered local anesthetics (LAs) compared with that of nonbuffered LAs in achieving anesthetic success?" TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey, Google Scholar Beta, and 2 textbooks to identify double-blinded randomized controlled trials in which researchers directly compared the efficacy of buffered and nonbuffered LAs in adult participants, as well as any associated side effects. Furthermore, they checked the reference lists of all included and excluded studies to identify any further trials. Weighted anesthesia success rates were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 14,011 studies were initially identified from the search; 5 double-blinded randomized clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Buffered LAs were more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than nonbuffered LAs (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 4.71; P = .0232; I2 = 66%). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This investigation revealed that buffered LAs are more effective than nonbuffered LAs when used for mandibular or maxillary anesthesia in pulpally involved teeth. Buffering of LAs has 2.29 times greater likelihood of achieving successful anesthesia.
BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a systematic review that addresses the following population, intervention, comparison, outcome question: "In adults requiring dental therapy with pulpally involved teeth, what is the comparative efficacy of buffered local anesthetics (LAs) compared with that of nonbuffered LAs in achieving anesthetic success?" TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey, Google Scholar Beta, and 2 textbooks to identify double-blinded randomized controlled trials in which researchers directly compared the efficacy of buffered and nonbuffered LAs in adult participants, as well as any associated side effects. Furthermore, they checked the reference lists of all included and excluded studies to identify any further trials. Weighted anesthesia success rates were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 14,011 studies were initially identified from the search; 5 double-blinded randomized clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Buffered LAs were more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than nonbuffered LAs (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 4.71; P = .0232; I2 = 66%). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This investigation revealed that buffered LAs are more effective than nonbuffered LAs when used for mandibular or maxillary anesthesia in pulpally involved teeth. Buffering of LAs has 2.29 times greater likelihood of achieving successful anesthesia.