Question · asked by 1 review
2% lidocaine, 1:50,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine: Success of local anaesthesia (soft tissue, self-reported; 100% success in all studies)
- Population
- Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which dental local anaesthesia was tested
- Intervention
- 2% lidocaine, 1:50,000 epinephrine
- Comparison
- 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine
- Outcome
- Success of local anaesthesia (soft tissue, self-reported; 100% success in all studies)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
2% lidocaine, 1:50,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine Success of local anaesthesia (soft tissue, self-reported; 100% success in all studies) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario… Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | '100% success' (lidocaine 1:100,000 vs 1:50,000): infraorbital block - Berberich 2009 40/40 vs 40/40; mandibular BI - Dagher 1997 30/30, Yonchak 2001 40/40; IANB - Yared 1997 30/30, Wali 2010 30/30. Both 100% successful. | 5 studies · 170 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-01 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- 2% lidocaine, 1:50,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:80,000 epinephrine · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.