Is mepivacaine as effective as lidocaine during inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

W. A. Vieira, L. R. Paranhos (Lead / Corresponding author), G. O. Cericato, A. Franco, M. A.G. Ribeiro

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mepivacaine and lidocaine for pulpal anaesthesia and pain control when administered via an inferior alveolar nerve block during the root canal treatment of mandibular molars in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. A research protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO. The systematic search was conducted during May 2017 in eight databases. The studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two examiners analysed the sample independently, decided the eligibility for inclusion and classified the articles according to their quality. Statistical analysis was performed with Mantel-Haenszel and I-square (I2) tests considering a confidence interval of 95%. The initial sample consisted of 1130 articles, out of which four were eligible. The articles were published between 1993 and 2016. For both pulpal anaesthesia and pain control, there was no significant difference between mepivacaine and lidocaine (P = 0.843, I2 = 0%, and P = 0.183, I2 = 21.1%, respectively). Mepivacaine and lidocaine were similarly effective for pulpal anaesthesia and pain control after inferior alveolar nerve blocks for root canal treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1104-1117
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Endodontic Journal
Volume51
Issue number10
Early online date26 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2018

Keywords

  • anaesthesia
  • endodontics
  • lidocaine
  • mepivacaine
  • pulpitis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Is mepivacaine as effective as lidocaine during inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this