Safety and efficacy of 4% articaine in mandibular third-molar extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

 J Am Dent Assoc

. 2020 Dec;151(12):912-923.e10.

 doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.08.016.

Abstract

Background: The authors aimed to assess whether 4% articaine is a safe and effective local anesthetic (LA) for mandibular third-molar extractions.

Types of studies reviewed: 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.

Practical implications: 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.