-
Anesthesia Progress 2018The aim of this study was to provide an evidence-based answer to the question: "Is 3.6-mL volume of an anesthetic agent more effective than 1.8-mL volume in providing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to provide an evidence-based answer to the question: "Is 3.6-mL volume of an anesthetic agent more effective than 1.8-mL volume in providing anesthesia for mandibular molars?" Following formulation of research question and keyword selection, a comprehensive search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane library, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Three-phase eligibility appraisal and quality assessment of the studies were carried out by 2 independent reviewers. To reduce clinical heterogeneity, the included studies were divided into 2 groups: studies on healthy teeth and studies on teeth with pulpitis. The data of included studies were statistically combined through meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model. A total of 20,778 records were initially retrieved from the search. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 8 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis. Of those, 5 studies were qualified for meta-analysis. In the irreversible pulpitis group, increasing the volume of anesthetic agent from 1.8 to 3.6 mL significantly increased the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block (risk ratio = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.67-3.59, p < .001). However, there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion regarding healthy teeth.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Mandibular Nerve; Molar; Nerve Block; Pulpitis
PubMed: 29509518
DOI: 10.2344/anpr-65-01-03 -
International Endodontic Journal Mar 2021The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'.
CONCLUSION
Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lidocaine; Mandibular Nerve; Middle Aged; Nerve Block; Pulpitis; Young Adult
PubMed: 33040335
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13428 -
Journal of Endodontics Nov 2015Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: in adults with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis who are undergoing endodontic treatment, what is the comparative efficacy of articaine compared with lidocaine in reducing pain and incidence of adverse events?
METHODS
A protocol was prepared and registered on PROSPERO. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov by using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion and quality. Weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Two hundred seventy-five studies were initially identified from the search; 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. For combined studies, articaine was more likely than lidocaine to achieve successful anesthesia (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.47; P = .0006; I(2) = 40%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lidocaine (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 0.50-31.62; P = .19; I(2) = 59%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies articaine was superior to lidocaine (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.40-3.44; P = .0006; I(2) = 30%), with further subgroup analysis showing no difference for mandibular block anesthesia (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.87-2.38; P = .16; I(2) = 0%). When used for supplemental infiltration after successful mandibular block anesthesia, articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.97-6.39; P < .0001; I(2) = 9%). There were no reports of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials provides level 1 evidence to support the use of articaine for patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. There is a significant advantage to using articaine over lidocaine for supplementary infiltration after mandibular block anesthesia but no advantage when used for mandibular block anesthesia alone or for maxillary infiltration.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Carticaine; Humans; Lidocaine; Preoperative Care; Pulpitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26293174
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001 -
Role of Lipopolysaccharide, Derived from Various Bacterial Species, in Pulpitis-A Systematic Review.Biomolecules Jan 2022Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is widely used for induction of inflammation in various human tissues, including dental pulp. The purpose of this study was to summarize current... (Review)
Review
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is widely used for induction of inflammation in various human tissues, including dental pulp. The purpose of this study was to summarize current medical literature focusing on (1) cell types used by researchers to simulate dental pulp inflammation, (2) LPS variants utilized in experimental settings and how these choices affect the findings. Our study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched for studies reporting outcomes of lipopolysaccharide application on dental pulp cells in vitro using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus. Having gathered data from 115 papers, we aimed to present all known effects LPS has on different cell types present in dental pulp. We focused on specific receptors and particles that are involved in molecular pathways. Our review provides an essential foundation for further research using in vitro models of pulpitis.
Topics: Humans; Inflammation; Lipopolysaccharides; Pulpitis
PubMed: 35053286
DOI: 10.3390/biom12010138 -
The Open Dentistry Journal 2018Ketorolac has advantages over other analgesics as a pre-anaesthetic medication. Considering this in mind, the present meta-analysis aims to identify the effect of oral... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ketorolac has advantages over other analgesics as a pre-anaesthetic medication. Considering this in mind, the present meta-analysis aims to identify the effect of oral ketorolac premedication on the anaesthetic efficacy of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS
Full-texts of eligible studies were obtained from electronic databases. The extracted data was analysed using non-Cochrane mode in RevMan 5.0 software. Relative risk [95% CI] was calculated for the success of IANB.
RESULTS
Four studies were included for the final review. The success rate of IANB on 221 patients with relative risk of 1.87 [1.36, 2.56] was statistically significant favouring ketorolac. The mean difference for VAS in 171 patients was not statistically significant {-13.55 [-33.91, 6.82]}.
CONCLUSION
Oral ketorolac can be successfully administered as a premedication before conventional inferior alveolar nerve block for endodontic treatment for irreversible pulpitis.
PubMed: 29875886
DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010340 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing to the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) by meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Studies were identified from Cochrane Library, Embase, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to May 2021. Randomized clinical trials comparing the anesthetic success rate of IANB and any other alternative anesthetic method were included. The quality of the selected studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effect models were performed to find the pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were selected, which included fourteen anesthetic methods. Two studies were classified as high risk of bias, five as uncertain risk and fifteen as low risk. Vazirani-Akinosi nerve block (VANB) [RR = 1.27; p = 0.007; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52; I = 0%] and intraosseous injection (IOI) [RR = 1.48; p = 0.04; 95% CI, 1.02-2.15; I = 46%] had superior effectiveness compared to IANB, with low certainty of evidence, as well as buccal infiltrations associated with IANB (BI + IANB) [RR = 1.84; p = 0.004; 95% CI, 1.22-2.79; I = 52%], with very low certainty.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests that buccal infiltrations associated with IANB, VANB, and IOI are more effective than IANB at anesthetizing posterior mandibular teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Alternative primary methods of anesthesia might be indicated for mandibular posterior teeth presenting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lidocaine; Mandibular Nerve; Pulpitis
PubMed: 34453595
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04145-7 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2021Several studies have linked apical periodontitis and systemic diseases. The aim of this study is to present a systematic review of the available literature investigating... (Review)
Review
Several studies have linked apical periodontitis and systemic diseases. The aim of this study is to present a systematic review of the available literature investigating whether there is an association between pulpal-periapical pathology and autoimmune disease. The review was conducted following the PRISMA statement. A literature search was performed in five databases. Studies involving patients with pulpal-periapical pathology and autoimmune diseases were included in the review. Based on the PICO model, the research question aimed to assess whether there is an increased risk of developing pulpal-periapical pathology in patients with autoimmune disease. Article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed using an adapted version of the STROBE guidelines. A total of seven studies were included in our review. The types of articles were five case-control and two cross-sectional studies. Periapical pathologies were associated to three autoimmune diseases (diabetes mellitus I, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease). Among the included studies, four show a low risk of bias, while three present a moderate risk. There could be an association between apical periodontitis and autoimmune diseases, although most studies report statistically non-significant associations.
PubMed: 34768405
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214886 -
PeerJ 2021The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the performance of 4% Articaine 2% Lidocaine for mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration...
Efficacy of 4% articaine 2% lidocaine in mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the performance of 4% Articaine 2% Lidocaine for mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis (IP).
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Open Gray were used to conduct a thorough literature search. A manual search of the reference lists of the publications found was also carried out. Two reviewers critically evaluated the papers for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction was done on the selected publications. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool and the Minors checklist were used to assess the quality of the selected studies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies, respectively. The RevMan software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data and subgroups according to the technique of anaesthetic solution delivery, as well as a sensitivity analysis ( < 0.05).
RESULTS
A total of twenty-six papers were included in the qualitative synthesis, with twenty-two of them being included in the meta-analysis. There were fifteen studies with a low potential for bias, three with a moderate potential for bias, and seven with a high potential for bias. The combined results of the 19 trials in the tooth level unit revealed that 4% articaine had a success rate 1.37 times greater than 2% lidocaine for mandibular teeth (RR, 1.37; 95% CI [1.17-1.62]; = 0.0002). For the maxillary buccal infiltration method, the combined results from the three trials revealed that 4% articaine resulted in a success rate 1.06 times greater than 2% lidocaine (RR, 1.06; 95% CI [0.95-1.2]; = 0.3). Excluding subgroups with a single study in sensitivity analysis for mandibular teeth revealed a substantial improvement in the success rate of the articaine group in treating IP when compared to the lidocaine group.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this meta-analysis back up the claim that articaine is more effective than lidocaine in providing anaesthesia in patients with IP. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42020204606 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020204606).
PubMed: 34631321
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12214 -
Frontiers in Oral Health 2023Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) or symptomatic apical periodontitis (SAP) are two painful conditions often warranting emergency treatment. The most common... (Review)
Review
Pain after emergency treatments of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis in the permanent dentition: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) or symptomatic apical periodontitis (SAP) are two painful conditions often warranting emergency treatment. The most common emergency treatments supported by evidence are pulpotomy and pulpectomy and are normally performed under time-constrained circumstances. However, there is no strong evidence of which treatment suggested in literature a clinician can use to reduce endodontic pain effectively. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate the present knowledge on postoperative pain related to the two types of emergency treatments available for treating SIP and SAP.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials investigating postoperative pain after emergency treatments (pulpotomy and/or pulpectomy) on permanent dentition with signs and symptoms of SIP and/or SAP were searched in three major databases from 1978 until 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's tool.
RESULTS
Only five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included studies indicated that pulpotomy and pulpectomy are both suitable treatment options for SAP and SIP, as they provide sufficient alleviation of pain in permanent dentition. However, inconsistent results were found between the included trials on which emergency treatment is more effective in reducing pain. Cochrane's tool revealed that the studies had a low risk of bias. Limitations found in the design of the included randomized control trials decreased the level of evidence. None of the included studies accounted for essential confounding variables, such as factors affecting pain (including the psychological aspects). Moreover, possible non-odontogenic pain was not assessed, and therefore, it was not excluded; hence, affecting the internal validity of the studies.
CONCLUSION
There are controversies within the available randomized control trials on which treatment is most effective in reducing emergency pain. This could be due to some weaknesses in the design of the clinical trials. Thus, further well-designed studies are warranted to draw conclusions on which emergency treatment is more effective in reducing pain.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023422282).
PubMed: 37920592
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2023.1147884 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Jun 2022To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
EFFICACY OF 4% ARTICAINE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK FOR MANDIBULAR MOLARS WITH SYMPTOMATIC IRREVERSIBLE PULPITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models.
RESULTS
Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Carticaine; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lidocaine; Mandibular Nerve; Molar; Nerve Block; Pain; Pulpitis
PubMed: 35718426
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101712