Anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lignocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration after failed inferior alveolar nerve block – A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: MESH terms and specific keywords were used to search Scopus, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. Randomized clinical trials were among the included articles that compared the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine or 2% lignocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration following a failed IANB in patients with chronic irreversible pulpitis. Results: Five of the 871 studies that were reviewed were given full-text reading considerations, and three studies were subjected to qualitative analysis after meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In 234 patients altogether, patients anesthetized with 4% articaine buccal infiltration had a success rate of 61%–83.3% in the 118 patients in the 4% articaine BI group and 116 patients in the 2% lidocaine BI group. Conclusion: Supplemental buccal infiltration with 4% articaine in permanent mandibular molars was associated with greater anesthetic efficacy than the 2% lignocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis after unsuccessful IANB.

Keywords

• anesthetic efficacy
• articaine
• inferior alveolar nerve block
• lignocaine
• supplementary buccal infiltration