Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42291007
Safety Evaluation of Articaine and Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Babhulgaonkar Purva B, Dahake Prasanna T, Dadpe Mahesh V, et al. · International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3513
Findings
Population Children aged 4-13 years receiving dental local anesthesia
4 findings
| Articaine 4% (mostly buccal infiltration) | Lignocaine 2% (mostly inferior alveolar nerve block) | Soft tissue injury 2 to 24 hours (up to 7 days) postoperative follow-up by phone call | RR 0.47 [0.17, 1.28] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 697 participants |
| Articaine 4% (mostly buccal infiltration) | Lignocaine 2% (mostly inferior alveolar nerve block) | Overall adverse events 2 to 24 hours (up to 7 days) postoperative follow-up by phone call | RR 1.26 [0.62, 2.54] GRADE not reported 7 studies · 740 participants |
| Articaine 4% (mostly buccal infiltration) | Lignocaine 2% (mostly inferior alveolar nerve block) | Edema 2 to 24 hours (up to 7 days) postoperative follow-up by phone call | RR 1.78 [0.17, 18.81] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 167 participants |
| Articaine 4% (mostly buccal infiltration) | Lignocaine 2% (mostly inferior alveolar nerve block) | Postoperative pain 2 to 24 hours (up to 7 days) postoperative follow-up by phone call | RR 1.68 [0.56, 5.08] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 605 participants |
Included primary studies 7
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malamed 2000 A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. PMID:10969438 | 2000 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Alzahrani 2018 Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel… PMID:29573375 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Arrow 2012 A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. PMID:22924356 | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jain 2021 Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine infiltration versus 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for… PMID:35102967 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Khanna 2021 An in vivo, randomized, controlled comparative evaluation of efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4%… PMID:34076382 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Massignan 2020 Efficacy and adverse events of 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine on primary molar extraction: A randomised controlled trial. PMID:32383196 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ram 2006 Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. PMID:16759322 | 2006 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Articaine versus lidocaine for local anesthesia in pediatric dental procedures: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2026) | 1 | 0.04 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients aged 4 to 13 years | Children aged 4 to 13 years undergoing routine dental procedures (n=740: 384 articaine, 356 lignocaine) |
| Intervention | Articaine (4%) dental local anesthesia | Articaine 4% with vasoconstrictor, mainly buccal infiltration (n=384) |
| Comparison | Lignocaine (2%) dental local anesthesia | Lignocaine 2% with vasoconstrictor, mainly inferior alveolar nerve block (n=356) |
| Outcomes | Safety (adverse reactions) of articaine and lignocaine | Overall adverse events, soft tissue injury, postoperative pain, edema |
| Study designs | In vivo studies, RCTs, comparative studies | RCTs (n=7) |
| Timing | Not specified | Follow-up 2 to 24 hours by phone call (up to 7 days in some studies) |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | yes |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | yes |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | No | No | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |