ReviewCureus2024
Articaine Versus Mepivacaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Patients With Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Articaine provides a faster onset and longer duration of analgesia at lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine in third molar extractions.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Trial
- A comparative clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of lignocaine 2% and articaine 4% for anesthesia of mandibular first molars with irreversible pulpitis.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) as an anesthetic strategy has shown conflicting results in terms of efficacy in the treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis. Mepivacaine and articaine are anesthetic agents commonly used in the IANB technique for pulpal anesthesia. This review aimed to compare mepivacaine and articaine regarding pain and success rate. We conducted a search on the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mepivacaine versus articaine until September 2024. The primary outcome of interest was success rate, while the secondary outcomes were pain intensity assessed by a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and incidence of severe pain. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effect model using STATA. Five RCTs including 568 patients were included in the final analysis. While there was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding the success rate (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.21, p=0.54), articaine significantly reduced the pain intensity compared to mepivacaine (MD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.86], p<0.001). Moreover, no significant difference was observed regarding the incidence of severe pain. Articaine reduced the intensity of pain post-procedure, with comparable results regarding success rate and incidence of severe pain with mepivacaine. Further large-volume RCTs are warranted to study the differences between the two options in the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.