Question · asked by 1 review
4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:80,000 epinephrine: Success of local anaesthesia (clinical; orphan data)
- 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, 1:100,000 epinephrine
- Comparison
- 2% lidocaine, 1:80,000 epinephrine
- Outcome
- Success of local anaesthesia (clinical; orphan data)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:80,000 epinephrine Success of local anaesthesia (clinical; orphan data) · 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 | No data available for meta-analysis; orphan data summarized in Table 6. Not pooled/graded. | Not reported | 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 |
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.