Question · asked by 1 review

3% mepivacaine plain 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
3% mepivacaine plain
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

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
3% mepivacaine plain 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 3% mepivacaine plain): infraorbital block - Berberich 2009 40/40 vs 40/40; IANB - Cohen 1993 27/27 vs 34/34, McLean 1993 30/30 vs 30/30. Both 100% successful.3 studies · 121 participantsGRADE not reported

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
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.