Dataset Information

Anesthetic efficacy in vital asymptomatic teeth using different local anesthetics: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth.

Materials and Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application.

Results

The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates.

Conclusions

Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

SUBMITTER: Liew A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8411002 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Perineural dexamethasone has been shown to prolong the duration of local anesthetic (LA) effect in regional anesthesia; however, the use of perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to to the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block remains controversial. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy of dexamethasone in prolonging the TAP block and enhancing recovery after abdominal surgery. METHODS:We identified and analyzed 9 RCTs published on or before September 30, 2017, regardless of the original language, after searching the following 6 bibliographic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Springer, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. databases. These studies compared the effects of perineural dexamethasone mixed with local anesthetic versus local anesthetic alone in the TAP block. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of each RCT. The primary outcomes were the time until the first request for postoperative analgesics and the analog pain scores at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the analgesic consumption and the incidence of nausea and vomiting on the first day after surgery. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. RESULTS:Perineural dexamethasone prolonged the duration of LA effect in the TAP block [mean difference (MD): 2.98 h; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.19 to 3.78] and reduced analog pain scores at 2 h [MD: -1.15; 95% CI: -2.14 to -0.16], 6 h [MD: -0.97; 95% CI: -1.51 to -0.44], and 12 h [MD: -0.93; 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.72] postoperatively. Furthermore, the use of perineural dexamethasone was associated with less analgesic consumption [standard mean difference: -1.29; 95% CI: -1.88 to -0.70] and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting [odds ratio: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.49] on the first day after surgery. CONCLUSION:Dexamethasone prolongs the LA effect when used as an adjuvant in the TAP block and improves the analgesic effects of the block.

Project description:Introduction: Athletes train physically to reach beyond their potential maximum aerobic threshold. Whey protein supplements (WPS) are often used in conjunction with physiotherapy and psychotherapy to regain better vital sign and physical performances. This review aimed to explore the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of WPS in sports performance and recovery among athletes. Methodology: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and safety of WPS on the vital sign and physical performance among athletes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Assessment tools were used to assess the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using the frequentist model with STATA version 14.2®. Results: A total of 333,257 research articles were identified out of which 20 RCTs were included for qualitative synthesis and network meta-analysis with 351 participants. Among the studies, 7 had low ROB and 3 RCTs had high ROB. Of these 20 trials, 16 trials were randomized clinical trials which compared whey protein supplements (WPS) with various comparators i.e., L-alanine, bovine colostrum, carbohydrate, casein, leucine, maltodextrin, rice, protein + caffeine were compared with placebo. Analysis from the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that for respiratory exchange ratio (RER) WPS was found to be significantly improving compared to maltodextrin (WMD = 0.012; 95%CI = 0.001, 0.023). Similarity to RPE (Rate Perceived Exertion), slight difference between WPS and the comparators, however, when the estimation was favorable to the comparators, there was moderate-high heterogeneity. For VO 2max, high heterogeneity appeared when WPS compared to maltodextrin with the I 2 = 97.8% (WMD = 4.064; 95% CI = -4.230, 12.359), meanwhile bovine colostrum (WMD = -2.658; 95%CI = -6.180, 0.865) only comparator that was better than WPS. According to the estimated effect of the supplements on physical performance outcome results, maximum power (8 studies, 185 athletes), highest ranked was bovine colostrum (SUCRA = 70.7%) and the lowest ranked was placebo (SUCRA = 17.9%), yet all insignificant. Then again, on average power (nine studies, 187 athletes), WPS was the highest ranked (SUCRA = 75.4 %) about -112.00 watt (-187.91, -36.08) and most of the estimations were significant. Body mass was reported in 10 studies (171 athletes), carbohydrate may be at the highest ranked (SUCRA = 66.9%) but it is insignificant. Thought the second highest ranked was WPS (SUCRA = 64.7%) and it is significant (WMD = -6.89 kg; CI = -8.24, -5.54). Conclusion: The findings of this review support the efficacy and safety of WPS as an ergogenic aid on athletes' sports performance and recovery. The overall quality of clinical evidence was found to be valid and reliable from the comprehensive search strategy and ROB assessment.