首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Endodontics: Official Journal of American Association of Endodontists >Does Articaine Provide an Advantage over Lidocaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
【24h】

Does Articaine Provide an Advantage over Lidocaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

机译:对于症状性不可逆性牙髓炎患者,青蒿素是否比利多卡因更具优势?系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Introduction: Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: in adults with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis who are undergoing endodontic treatment, what is the comparative efficacy of articaine compared with lidocaine in reducing pain and incidence of adverse events? Methods: A protocol was prepared and registered on PROSPERO. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov by using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion and quality. Weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. Results: Two hundred seventy-five studies were initially identified from the search; 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. For combined studies, articaine was more likely than lidocaine to achieve successful anesthesia (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% Cl, 1.41-3.47; P =.0006; I-2 = 40%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lidocaine (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 0.50-31.62; P=.19; I-2 = 59%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies articaine was superior to lidocaine (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.40-3.44; P =.0006; I-2 = 30%), with further subgroup analysis showing no difference for mandibular block anesthesia (OR, 1.44; 95% Cl, 0.87-2.38; P =.16; I-2 = 0%). When used for supplemental infiltration after successful mandibular block anesthesia, articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.97-6.39; P <.0001; I-2 = 9%). There were no reports of adverse events. Conclusions: This systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials provides level 1 evidence to support the use of articaine for patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. There is a significant advantage to using articaine over lidocaine for supplementary infiltration after mandibular block anesthesia but no advantage when used for mandibular block anesthesia alone or for maxillary infiltration.
机译:简介:有症状的不可逆性牙髓炎患者很难进行深度的牙髓麻醉。这项研究提供了系统的综述和荟萃分析,以解决人口,干预,比较,结局(PICO)问题:在接受牙髓治疗的有症状的不可逆性牙髓炎的成年人中,阿替卡因与利多卡因相比在减轻疼痛方面的比较功效是什么?和不良事件的发生率?方法:编写协议并在PROSPERO上注册。使用严格的纳入和排除标准,在MEDLINE,Scopus,Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov中进行了电子搜索。两名独立审核者评估了纳入和质量的资格。使用随机效应模型估算并比较了加权麻醉成功率和95%置信区间(CI)。结果:最初从搜索中找到了275项研究。 10项符合纳入标准的双盲,随机临床试验。对于联合研究,青蒿素比利多卡因更有可能成功完成麻醉(优势比[OR]为2.21; 95%Cl为1.41-3.47; P = .0006; I-2 = 40%)。上颌浸润亚组分析显示青蒿素和利多卡因之间无显着差异(OR为3.99; 95%CI为0.50-31.62; P = .19; I-2 = 59%)。对于下颌联合麻醉研究,阿替卡因优于利多卡因(OR为2.20; 95%CI为1.40-3.44; P = .0006; I-2 = 30%),进一步的亚组分析显示下颌阻滞麻醉没有差异(OR, 1.44; 95%Cl,0.87-2.38; P = .16; I-2 = 0%)。当成功用于下颌阻滞麻醉后进行补充浸润时,青蒿素比利多卡因有效得多(OR,3.55; 95%CI,1.97-6.39; P <.0001; I-2 = 9%)。没有不良事件的报道。结论:这项对双盲,随机临床试验的系统评价提供了1级证据,支持对症状性不可逆性牙髓炎患者使用青蒿素。下肢麻醉后使用青蒿素优于利多卡因进行补充浸润具有明显优势,但单独用于下颌麻醉或上颌浸润则无优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号