The efficacy of articaine and lidocaine local anaesthetic in child patients.

Abstract

Data sourcesCochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, SCIEXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge).Study selectionTwo reviewers selected randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in pain rating during dental treatment in child patients.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors extracted data using a standardised form, and risk of bias was assessed based on Cochranes Risk of bias tool for RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed on all included studies (n=6) where self-reported pain during and after dental procedure was recorded, and which compared articaine local anaesthesia (LA) to lidocaine LA in children. Then a sensitive analysis was performed excluding the studies with high overall risk of bias (n=3).ResultsSix studies were included, one had 'low', two had 'moderate/uncertain' and three had 'high' risk of bias. To evaluate the impact of these studies with 'high' overall risk of bias, a sensitivity analysis was performed and even when excluding these studies, children who had articaine reported significantly less pain after procedure. However, during the procedure no difference was found between self-reported pain when articaine infiltration and lidocaine inferior dental nerve block were compared.ConclusionsLow quality evidence suggests no difference in efficacy between lidocaine Inferior alveolar dental nerve blocks and articaine infiltration when used for routine dental treatment in children. Also, no difference was found in self-reported pain between lidocaine and articaine during treatment procedures, but apparently articaine leads to less pain reporting after the procedure. The body of the evidence is quite low due to the substantial heterogeneity in the reported outcomes and the overall high risk of bias of the included studies.