Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

Erica Martin; Alan Nimmo; Andrew Lee; Ernest Jennings

doi:10.1038/s41405-021-00082-5

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

BDJ Open. 2021 Jul 17;7(1):27. doi: 10.1038/s41405-021-00082-5.

Authors

Erica Martin¹, Alan Nimmo², Andrew Lee³, Ernest Jennings⁴

Affiliations

¹ General Dentistry, College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia. erica.martin@jcu.edu.au.
² Medical Science, College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia.
³ Preventative Dentistry and Indigenous Oral Health, College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia.
⁴ Anatomy, College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia.

Abstract

Objectives: To comprehensively review the existing studies of articaine in dentistry and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome question: "Is articaine a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for routine dental treatment compared to lidocaine?"

Methods: Database searches were conducted in Medline Ovid, Medline Pubmed, Scopus, Emcare, Proquest and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were all existing English, human, randomised controlled trials of interventions involving 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis using Cochrane Review Manager 5 software. Anaesthetic success odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results: Articaine had a higher likelihood of achieving anaesthetic success than lidocaine overall and in all subgroup analyses with varying degrees of significance. Overall (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.50, 3.15, I² = 62%) articaine had 2.17 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P < 0.0001). For mandibular blocks (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.98, I² = 0%) articaine had 1.5 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.004). For all infiltrations, maxillary and mandibular (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.61, 4.79, I² = 66%) articaine had 2.78 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.0002). None of the studies reported any major local anaesthetic-related adverse effects as a result of the interventions.

Conclusions: Articaine is a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for all routine dental procedures in patients of all ages, and more likely to achieve successful anaesthesia than lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Neither anaesthetic has a higher association with anaesthetic-related adverse effects.