The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: A meta-analysis

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
Journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 2.75). 12/2009; 38(4):307-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.12.003
Source: PubMed


Although articaine has been recommended for providing an improved local anaesthetic effect in patients presenting for dental treatments, a relevant meta-analysis has been lacking. Despite articaine's popularity, there is contradictory evidence to support the claims. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of articaine with lignocaine in maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anaesthesia in patients presenting for routine dental treatments.
The following databases were searched: Cochrane Central, Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Health and Medical Complete. In addition, the metaRegister of the controlled trials database was searched to identify dissertations and ongoing or unpublished trials, and the Australian division of Septodont (the manufacturer of articaine and lignocaine) was contacted. The bibliographies of identified articles were also searched.
Inclusion was limited to: (1) randomized controlled trials in patients requiring non-complex routine dental treatments; (2) interventions comparing 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) with 2% lignocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anaesthesia; and (3) with principal outcome measures of anaesthetic success, post-injection adverse events or post-injection pain. Trial quality was evaluated by assessing randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, intention to treat analyses and how losses to follow up were addressed. Treatment effects were combined by meta-analysis using the random effects method.
Articaine is more likely than lignocaine to achieve an anaesthetic success in the posterior first molar area with a relative risk for success at 1.31 (95% CI 1.12-1.54, P=0.0009). There is no difference in post-injection adverse events between articaine and lignocaine with a relative risk of 1.05 (95% CI 0.66-1.65, P=0.85). However, articaine injection results in a higher pain score as measured by Visual Analogue Scale, than lignocaine at the injection site after anaesthetic reversal with a weighted mean difference of 6.49 (95% CI 0.02-12.96, P=0.05) decreasing to 1.10 (95% CI 0.18-2.02, P=0.02) on the third day after injection.
The results of this systematic review provide support for the argument that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anaesthetic success in the first molar region for routine dental procedures. In addition, both drugs appear to have similar adverse effect profiles. The clinical impact of articaine's higher post-injection pain scores than lignocaine is negligible. Hence, articaine is a superior anaesthetic to lignocaine for use in routine dental procedures. Use in children under 4 years of age is not recommended, since no data exists to support such usage.

89 Reads
  • Source
    • "felypressin are among the most frequently used agents. Monitoring by drug control agencies indicates that these drugs can be used safely and effectively (1). Little is known, however, about their effect on levels of patient stress. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Was to evaluate the effect of different regional anesthetics (articaine with epinephrine versus prilocaine with felypressin) on stress in the extraction of impacted lower third molars in healthy subjects. Sutdy Desing: A prospective single-blind, split-mouth cross-over randomized study was designed, with a control group. The experimental group consisted of 24 otherwise healthy male volunteers, with two impacted lower third molars which were surgically extracted after inferior alveolar nerve block (regional anesthesia), with a fortnight’s interval: the right using 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine, and the left 3% prilocaine with 1:1.850.000 felypressin. Patients were randomized for the first surgical procedure. To analyze the variation in four stress markers, homovanillic acid, 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol, prolactin and cortisol, 10-mL blood samples were obtained at t = 0, 5, 60, and 120 minutes. The control group consisted of 12 healthy volunteers, who did not undergo either extractions or anesthetic procedures but from whom blood samples were collected and analyzed in the same way. Results: Plasma cortisol increased in the experimental group (multiple range test, P<0.05), the levels being significantly higher in the group receiving 3% prilocaine with 1:1.850,000 felypressin (signed rank test, p<0.0007). There was a significant reduction in homovanillic acid over time in both groups (multiple range test, P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in homovanillic acid, 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol or prolactin concentrations between the experimental and control groups. Conclusions: The effect of regional anesthesia on stress is lower when 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is used in this surgical procedure. Key words:Stress markets, epinephrine versus felypressin.
    Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 12/2013; 19(3). DOI:10.4317/medoral.19362 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Experts have said that it may be the analgesic of choice in children over 4 years of age (Nizharadze et al. 2011). For younger children, a current meta-analysis could not find recommendations for its use, since no data supporting such were found (Katyal 2010). To avoid the risk of toxicity, especially when treating small children, a body weight-based dosage has to be calculated (Ahmed and Martinez 2009) and the use of a vasoconstrictor is recommended (Lipp et al. 1993; Meechan et al. 1994; Yagiela 1995). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim In paediatric dentistry, epinephrine may contribute to systemic and local side-effects. On the other hand it is necessary to provide good and safe local analgesia. Therefore, an articaine solution with reduced epinephrine concentration was tested in a clinical setting. Methods In a non-interventional clinical study, dental treatment was performed in children and adolescents (4–17 years). For local analgesia, articaine 4 % plus epinephrine 1:400,000 was used in the technique chosen by the dentist. Efficacy and tolerance as well as duration of soft tissue analgesia and side-effects were evaluated. Results 999 patients (50.5 % male, 49.5 % female) with a mean age of 7.9 (SD 2.34) years were treated. Two hundred seventy six patients (27.6 %) received sedation prior to treatment. The mean treatment time was 15 min (SD 10). In 93.5 % of cases, initial local analgesia was sufficient to perform the planned treatment. In 99 % of cases (n = 989) the planned treatment could be completed. A second injection was necessary in 6.5 % of cases. A mean duration of soft tissue analgesia of 2.19 h (SD 1.01) was seen. Slight side-effects occurred in 3.1 % of subjects. Conclusions Due to high efficacy, tolerance and safety, the articaine 4 % solution with the reduced epinephrine concentration (1:400,000) was a safe and suitable drug for paediatric routine treatment.
    European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 04/2013; 14(2). DOI:10.1007/s40368-013-0024-9
  • Source
    • "The age of the sample consisted of patients ranging from 18 to 30 years of age, which can be verified in the majority of comparative studies related anesthetic and third molar surgery (9,11,12). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain reduction has been the subject of continuous research in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery since postoperative pain with ranging of intensity and duration may affects the patient submitted in an oral surgical procedure. The aim of present study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness between two different anesthetic solutions (articaine and lidocaine) in third molar surgery. A prospective, randomized and clinical study with patients submitted to third molar surgery at two distinct times. The visual analogue scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the analgesic consumption record were used to measure the pain after each surgical time. Duration of surgery, latency, the amount of anesthetic used and analgesic consumption showed clinical differences with highlights of articaine, though statistical significance was not observed (P<0.05). The pain scores indicated similar anesthetic efficacy with both solutions. In the present study no significant differences were observed between lidocaine and articaine in the control of postoperative pain.
    Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 12/2011; 17(1):e140-5. DOI:10.4317/medoral.17148 · 1.17 Impact Factor
Show more


89 Reads
Available from