Efficacy of articaine vs lignocaine in maxillary and mandibular infiltration and block anesthesia in the dental treatments of adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta‐analysis was to address the following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question: Is the efficacy of articaine better than lignocaine in adults requiring dental treatment? Four percent articaine was compared with 2% lignocaine for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anesthesia, and with the principal outcome measures of anesthetic success. Using RevMan software, the weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared using a random‐effects model. For combined studies, articaine was more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than lignocaine (N = 18, odds ratio OR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.56, P < 0.00001, I² = 32%). Maxillary and mandibular infiltration studies showed obvious superiority of articaine to lignocaine (N = 8, OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.51‐4.15, P = 0.0004, I² = 41%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lignocaine (N = 5, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.88‐3.23, P = 0.11, I² = 19%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies, articaine was superior to lignocaine (N = 14, OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.72, P < 0.0001, I² = 32%), with further subgroup analysis showing significant differences in both mandibular block anesthesia (N = 11, OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19‐2.03, P = 0.001), I² = 0%) and mandibular infiltration (N = 3, OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.62‐5.72, P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), indicating that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anesthetic success in routine dental procedures.