A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Two Percent Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine and Three Percent Mepivacaine in the Maxillary High Tuberosity Second Division Nerve Block

Forloine, Amy; Drum, Melissa; Reader, Al; Nusstein, John; Beck, Mike

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.014

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten studies compared 3% mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The results showed that 3% mepivacaine was significantly inferior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–1.00, P = 0.05) ( Figure a ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Screening of the titles and abstracts yielded 34 eligible studies and their full texts were retrieved. In total, 28 studies were included – 15 in English and 13 in Chinese ( Figure ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 28 studies included, 16 were parallel designs and 12 were crossover designs. The washout periods of crossover designs were 1–3 weeks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed that 3% mepivacaine was significantly inferior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–1.00, P = 0.05) ( Figure a ). When anaesthetic techniques were considered, the OR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.14–6.29, P = 0.95) for infiltrations and 0.78 (95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.10) for nerve blocks. When jaws were considered, the OR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.57–1.20; P = 0.31) for maxillary regions and 0.69 (95% CI 0.39–1.21, P = 0.20) for mandibular regions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pain on postinjection phase was recorded in day 0, day 1, day 2 and day 3 after injection in four studies. The pooled results of these studies showed no intergroup difference in the percentage of patients who felt no pain or mild pain on day 0 to day 3 in those receiving 3% mepivacaine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline ( Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Liu

Yang

et al. 2014

International Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine used in local anaesthesia in dentistry. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched electronically. Relevant journals and references of studies included were hand-searched for randomised controlled trials comparing mepivacaine with lidocaine in terms of efficacy and safety. Twenty-eight studies were included, of which 15 had low risk of bias and 13 had moderate risk of bias. In comparison with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline, 3% mepivacaine showed a lower success rate (P = 0.05), a shorter onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.0005), inferior pain control during injection phase and superior inhibition of heart rate increase (P < 0.0001). In contrast, 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline gave a higher success rate (P < 0.00001), a similar onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.34) and superior pain control during injection phase (P < 0.0001); 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin had the same success rate (P = 0.69) and similar onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.90). In addition, 3% mepivacaine had shorter onset time (P = 0.004), same level of success rate (P = 0.28) and similar pain control during injection and postinjection compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 adrenaline. Given the efficacy and safety of the two solutions, 2% mepivacaine with vasoconstrictors is better than 2% lidocaine with vasoconstrictors in dental treatment. Meanwhile, 3% plain mepivacaine is better for patients with cardiac diseases.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Screening of the titles and abstracts yielded 34 eligible studies and their full texts were retrieved. In total, 28 studies were included – 15 in English and 13 in Chinese ( Figure ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 28 studies included, 16 were parallel designs and 12 were crossover designs. The washout periods of crossover designs were 1–3 weeks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Liu

Yang

et al. 2014

International Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

George

Morgan

Meechan

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

show abstract

Maxillary Anesthesia I

2024

Local Anesthesia in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Two Percent Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine and Three Percent Mepivacaine in the Maxillary High Tuberosity Second Division Nerve Block

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

Maxillary Anesthesia I

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About