This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthetic administration into temporomandibular joint cavities in relieving pain and increasing mandibular mobility. Randomized controlled trials were included with no limitation on report publication dates. Final searches were performed on 15 October 2023, using engines provided by the US National Library, Bielefeld University, and Elsevier Publishing House. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Articular pain and mandible abduction values and their mean differences were summarized in tables and graphs. Eight studies on a total of 252 patients evaluating intra-articular administration of articaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and mepivacaine were included in the systematic review. None of the eligible studies presented a high risk of bias in any of the assessed domains. An analgesic effect of intra-articular bupivacaine was observed for up to 24 h. In the long-term follow-up, there were no statistically significant changes in quantified pain compared to both the baseline value and the placebo group, regardless of the anesthetic used (articaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine). There is no scientific evidence on the effect of intra-articular administration of local anesthesia on the range of motion of the mandible. Therefore, in the current state of knowledge, the administration of local anesthetics into the temporomandibular joint cavities can only be considered as a short-term pain relief measure.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of articaine for extracting upper teeth. A search of the PubMed, Ovid SP, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on August 26, 2022, based on the pre-specified question using the MeSH terms [(buccal) and (articaine) and (infiltration) and (dental)]. Of the 16 clinical trials identified involving 1,339 patients, six compared the subjective procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of articaine with that of lidocaine, three of which reported reduced pain and the other three greater success in extraction for the articaine group. Four of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with double (buccal and palatal/lingual) infiltration; two reported insignificant differences between the groups; and the other two reported greater success using buccal and palatal injections. Five of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal articaine with double buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine and reported insignificant differences. The other of the 16 studies compared the subjective pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:100:000 with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:200:000 and found a statistically significant difference. All of these studies concluded that upper permanent maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a 4% articaine buccal infiltration, but further investigation is necessary to determine whether this approach can replace the gold standard of buccal and palatal infiltration.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration to that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% xylocaine in providing pulpal anesthesia for carrying out pulp therapy of deciduous mandibular molars in children.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Cochrane Registry, and Ovid SP were searched in the timeframe between years 1991 and 2020 with appropriate MeSH terms. Full texts were selected only after a preliminary screening of relevant titles and abstracts.
UNASSIGNED: Five studies were involved for the final qualitative analysis. The parameter sought for was \"Pain during pulp therapy after injection with buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration (4% articaine) or IANB (2% lignocaine) in primary mandibular molars. Three studies evaluated objective pain (operator reported) during pulp therapy, reported significantly lower pain scores with articaine buccal infiltration (BI). Among the two studies that evaluated subjective pain, one study reported a significantly lower pain score with the articaine BI group. The other study reported no difference statistically between both groups.
UNASSIGNED: Under the bounds of this systematic review, BI with 4% articaine might be equivalent to IANB with 2% lignocaine for providing pulpal anesthesia required for pulp therapy procedures in primary mandibular molars; however, the quality of evidence is low, more number of well-controlled studies with adequate sized sample should be conducted out to verify the same.
UNASSIGNED: Tirupathi SP, Rajasekhar S, Ganesh M, et al. Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(3):420-425.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the performance of 4% Articaine vs. 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 (P < 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]; P = 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]; P = 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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).

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to assess whether 4% articaine is a safe and effective local anesthetic (LA) for mandibular third-molar extractions.
METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. The authors performed a meta-analysis of safety and efficacy variables comparing 4% articaine with different LAs.
RESULTS: The authors assessed 482 articles but only 14 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria for review. No statistically significant differences were found among the selected LAs regarding safety. Four percent articaine required fewer reinjections than 2% lidocaine and had a shorter onset time than 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 4% lidocaine. Four percent articaine had a longer anesthesia effect than 2% lidocaine and 2% mepivacaine, but a shorter anesthesia effect than 0.5% bupivacaine.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of 4% articaine for mandibular third-molar extraction is a safe choice that requires fewer reinjections and has a shorter onset time than other aminoamide-type LAs.

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was \"Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine.\" Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

BACKGROUND: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVE: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment.
METHODS: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer.
METHODS: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.
RESULTS: Five systematic reviews with meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as \'high\' quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events.
UNASSIGNED: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine.

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to address the following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question: Is the efficacy of articaine better than lignocaine in adults requiring dental treatment? Four percent articaine was compared with 2% lignocaine for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anesthesia, and with the principal outcome measures of anesthetic success. Using RevMan software, the weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared using a random-effects model. For combined studies, articaine was more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than lignocaine (N = 18, odds ratio [OR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45-2.56, P < 0.00001, I2  = 32%). Maxillary and mandibular infiltration studies showed obvious superiority of articaine to lignocaine (N = 8, OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.51-4.15, P = 0.0004, I2  = 41%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lignocaine (N = 5, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.88-3.23, P = 0.11, I2  = 19%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies, articaine was superior to lignocaine (N = 14, OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.45-2.72, P < 0.0001, I2  = 32%), with further subgroup analysis showing significant differences in both mandibular block anesthesia (N = 11, OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19-2.03, P = 0.001), I2  = 0%) and mandibular infiltration (N = 3, OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.62-5.72, P < 0.00001, I2  = 0%), indicating that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anesthetic success in routine dental procedures.

The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of articaine compared with lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis (IP) treatment. Databases were explored electronically and relevant journals as well as the references of the included studies were hand-searched for randomised clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of articaine with lidocaine in treatment of IP. Twenty studies were included, of which eight had low risk of bias, 10 had moderate risk of bias and two had high risk of bias. In comparison with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine showed a higher success rate in anaesthesia of IP at either person (risk ratio (RR) 1.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.10 1.20; P < 0.00001) or tooth unit (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.10 1.19, P < 0.00001), lower VAS scores during injection phase (mean difference (MD) -0.67; 95% CI -1.26 -0.08, P = 0.02) and treatment phase (MD -3.35; 95% CI -3.78 -2.91, P < 0.00001), shorter onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (MD -0.94; 95% CI -1.13 -0.74, P < 0.00001) and lower percentage of patients undergoing adverse events (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.03 0.92, P = 0.04). Given the efficacy and safety of the two solutions, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in dental treatments in IP.