Question · asked by 1 review

4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine: Success of local anaesthesia, absence of pain (clinical testing of healthy pulps, hard and soft tissues)

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
4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine
Comparison
0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine
Outcome
Success of local anaesthesia, absence of pain (clinical testing of healthy pulps, hard and soft tissues)

4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine showed no clear difference in success of local anaesthesia, absence of pain (clinical testing of… compared with 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine
Success of local anaesthesia, absence of pain (clinical testing of healthy pulps, hard and soft tissues) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario… · 10 minutes post-injection to end of clinical procedure
4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine showed no clear difference in success of local anaesthesia, absence of pain (clinical testing of… compared with 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (low certainty).
Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 0.87 [0.27, 2.83]2 studies · 37 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia
2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
2018-01Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.