Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorSánchez Torres, Alba
dc.contributor.authorCamps Font, Octavi
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa de Figueiredo, Rui Pedro
dc.contributor.authorClé-Ovejero, Adrià
dc.contributor.authorCoulthard, Paul
dc.contributor.authorGay Escoda, Cosme
dc.contributor.authorValmaseda Castellón, Eduardo
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-30T19:16:30Z
dc.date.available2025-01-30T19:16:30Z
dc.date.issued2020-11-01
dc.date.updated2025-01-30T19:16:30Z
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the different local anaesthetic agents for the extraction of impacted lower third molars. A network meta-analysis was performed of all published reports of randomized controlled clinical trials assessing efficacy (anaesthetic success and absence of need for supplementary anaesthesia during the surgical procedure) and/or safety (number of adverse events) of anaesthetic agents. Three electronic databases were searched, from their earliest records up to April 2019. Additionally, the grey literature was searched to identify further potential candidates for inclusion. Anaesthesia had to be delivered by an inferior alveolar nerve block, complemented with infiltration anaesthesia of the buccal nerve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. This study included a total of 21 trials (2021 molars) assessing the efficacy and 19 trials (1977 molars) assessing the safety of 11 anaesthetic solutions. Seven of the studies included were considered to have a high risk of bias. The most effective local anaesthetic for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars appeared to be 4% articaine, with significant differences when compared with 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 1% ropivacaine. Lidocaine is the safest local anaesthetic, although all investigated solutions can be used safely.
dc.format.extent39 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.idgrec707766
dc.identifier.issn0901-5027
dc.identifier.pmid32473767
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/218293
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.isformatofVersió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.04.016
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2020, vol. 49, num.11, p. 1497-1507
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.04.016
dc.rightscc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier, 2020
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)
dc.subject.classificationQueixal del seny
dc.subject.classificationCirurgia oral
dc.subject.classificationAnestèsics locals
dc.subject.classificationNervis cranials
dc.subject.otherWisdom tooth
dc.subject.otherOral surgery
dc.subject.otherLocal anesthetics
dc.subject.otherCranial nerves
dc.titleWhich is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Fitxers

Paquet original

Mostrant 1 - 1 de 1
Carregant...
Miniatura
Nom:
235298.pdf
Mida:
448.38 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format