Articaine 88mg/2.2ml / Adrenaline (base) 11micrograms/2.2ml (1 in 200,000) solution for injection cartridges

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, I 2  = 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, I 2  = 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, I 2  = 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.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) as an anesthetic strategy has shown conflicting results in terms of efficacy in the treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis. Mepivacaine and articaine are anesthetic agents commonly used in the IANB technique for pulpal anesthesia. This review aimed to compare mepivacaine and articaine regarding pain and success rate. We conducted a search on the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mepivacaine versus articaine until September 2024. The primary outcome of interest was success rate, while the secondary outcomes were pain intensity assessed by a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and incidence of severe pain. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effect model using STATA. Five RCTs including 568 patients were included in the final analysis. While there was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding the success rate (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.21, p=0.54), articaine significantly reduced the pain intensity compared to mepivacaine (MD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.86], p<0.001). Moreover, no significant difference was observed regarding the incidence of severe pain. Articaine reduced the intensity of pain post-procedure, with comparable results regarding success rate and incidence of severe pain with mepivacaine. Further large-volume RCTs are warranted to study the differences between the two options in the long term.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases up to July 10, 2025, identifying relevant studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the success rate of anesthesia. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using a pre-designed form and the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis when heterogeneity was low (I 2 ≤ 50%, p ≥ 0.1); otherwise, a random-effects model was adopted. Additionally, another model was employed for validation, and the results from both models were compared to derive more reasonable conclusions. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the Egger test.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that modified anesthetic protocols for SIP were 3.62 times more successful than conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using standard 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (OR = 3.34; 95% CI: 2.49-4.48). Studies conducted in Iran had the highest success rate (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 3.59-5.17, p p p ConclusionThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for SIP, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, PROSPERO database CRD42025638427.

Abstract licence: CC BY

IntroductionThis review systematically compares the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery, with a focus on postoperative pain control, duration of analgesia, intraoperative outcomes, and hemodynamic stability.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through December 24th, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), duration of postoperative analgesia, and need for rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes included anesthesia onset time, intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and hemodynamic parameters. Meta-analysis was performed using a random--effects model.ResultsA total of 11 RCTs involving 749 patients (bupivacaine: 367, articaine: 382) were included. Bupivacaine significantly reduced postoperative pain scores at multiple time points, with the greatest effect observed at 4 h postoperatively (mean difference [MD] = -2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.41, -1.77; I2 = 0%). The duration of postoperative analgesia was comparable between groups (MD = 91.22 min; 95% CI: -5.13, 187.57; I2 = 99.68%), with sensitivity analysis confirming this effect. Articaine exhibited a significantly faster onset of anesthesia (MD = 0.74 min; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12; I2 = 81.05%), while intraoperative pain scores, surgical difficulty, and operative time were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in hemodynamic parameters, suggesting similar safety profiles.ConclusionBupivacaine provides superior postoperative pain control and prolonged analgesia, making it advantageous for extended pain relief in third molar surgery. However, articaine's faster onset may enhance surgical efficiency. Both anesthetics demonstrated comparable intraoperative efficacy and safety.

Abstract licence: CC BY