Comparative efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus articaine in third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v85.45787Keywords:
bupivacaine, articaine, third molar surgery, local anesthesia, postoperative painAbstract
Introduction: This review systematically compares the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery, with a focus on postoperative pain control, duration of analgesia, intraoperative outcomes, and hemodynamic stability.
Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through December 24th, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupivacaine and articaine in third molar surgery. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), duration of postoperative analgesia, and need for rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes included anesthesia onset time, intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and hemodynamic parameters. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
Results: A total of 11 RCTs involving 749 patients (bupivacaine: 367, articaine: 382) were included. Bupivacaine significantly reduced postoperative pain scores at multiple time points, with the greatest effect observed at 4 h postoperatively (mean difference [MD] = −2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.41, −1.77; I2 = 0%). The duration of postoperative analgesia was comparable between groups (MD = 91.22 min; 95% CI: −5.13, 187.57; I2 = 99.68%), with sensitivity analysis confirming this effect. Articaine exhibited a significantly faster onset of anesthesia (MD = 0.74 min; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12; I2 = 81.05%), while intraoperative pain scores, surgical difficulty, and operative time were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in hemodynamic parameters, suggesting similar safety profiles.
Conclusion: Bupivacaine provides superior postoperative pain control and prolonged analgesia, making it advantageous for extended pain relief in third molar surgery. However, articaine’s faster onset may enhance surgical efficiency. Both anesthetics demonstrated comparable intraoperative efficacy and safety.
Downloads
References
Steed MB. The indications for third-molar extractions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145:570–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.18
Seymour R, Walton J. Pain control after third molar surgery. Int J Oral Surg. 1984;13:457–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(84)80017-4
Yang F, Gao Y, Zhang L, Zheng B, Wang L, Sun H, et al. Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:3781–800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03490-3
Fawcett J, Kennedy J, Kumar A, Ledger R, Kumara G, Patel M, et al. Comparative efficacy and pharmacokinetics of racemic bupivacaine and S-bupivacaine in third molar surgery. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2002;5:199–204.
Zhang A, Tang H, Liu S, Ma C, Ma S, Zhao H. Anesthetic efficiency of articaine versus lidocaine in the extraction of lower third molars: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:18–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.020
Thakare A, Bhate K, Kathariya R. Comparison of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine anesthetic efficacy in orthodontic extractions: prospective, randomized crossover study. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2014;52:59–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aat.2014.04.006
Tokuç B, Coşkunses FM. Comparison of the effects of articaine and bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar tooth surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2021;21:575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.6.575
Hopman A, Baart J, Brand H. Articaine and neurotoxicity – a review. Br Dent J. 2017;223:501–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.782
Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S. Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, and 0.5% bupivacaine on inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2017;31(2):124-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.1642
Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Muñoz-López JL, Vallecillo-Capilla MF, Reyes-Botella C. Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:2981–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2386-1
Sancho-Puchades M, Vílchez-Pérez MA, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Paredes-García J, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars. A crossover randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;17:e462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17628
Martin E, Nimmo A, Lee A, Jennings E. Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment. BDJ Open. 2021;7:27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-021-00085-2
Badr N, Aps J. Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: a review. J Dent Anesthes Pain Med. 2018;18:319–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.6.319
Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(6):387-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209567
Abdulwahab M, Boynes S, Moore P, Seifikar S, Al-Jazzaf A, Alshuraidah A, et al. The efficacy of six local anesthetic formulations used for posterior mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140:1018–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0313
Gregorio LV, Giglio FP, Sakai VT, Modena KC, Colombini BL, Calvo AM, et al. A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1: 200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2008;106:19–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024
Kaur K, Kaur T, Kapila S, Bhullar RS, Dhawan A, Singh B. Evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized comparative clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2024;23(3):538-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01548-7
Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013;5:e66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.50869
Ahmed R, Muthusekhar MR, Murugan PS. Comparison of efficacy of articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third surgery: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Res Med Dent Sci. 2021;9:15–8.
Tenglikar P, Manas A, Sahoo AR, Bhoi S, Singh A, Patil PB, et al. A comparative evaluation of anesthetic effectiveness of 4% articaine vs 0.5% bupivacaine for lower molar tooth extraction. Cureus. 2022;14(12):e32611 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32611
Trullenque-Eriksson A, Guisado-Moya B. Comparative study of two local anesthetics in the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: bupivacaine and articaine. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16:e390–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.16.e390
Miroshnychenko A, Ibrahim S, Azab M, Roldan Y, Diaz Martinez JP, Tamilselvan D, et al. njectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain: 2 systematic reviews. J Am Dent Assoc. 2023;154:53–64.e14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2022.10.014
Miglani S, Ansari I, Patro S, Mohanty A, Mansoori S, Ahuja B, et al. Efficacy of 4% articaine vs 2% lidocaine in mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia n patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12214
Santos-Sanz L, Toledano-Serrabona J, Gay-Escoda C. Safety and efficacy of 4% articaine n mandibular third-molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151:912–23.e10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.08.016
Taneja S, Singh A, Jain A. Anesthetic effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients during dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Dent. 2020;42:273–81.
de Carvalho Nogueira EF, da Costa Araújo FA, Faro TF, Almeida RdAC, de Holanda Vasconcellos RJ. Does the use of articaine increase the risk of hypesthesia in lower third molar surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79:64–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.08.036
Rossi MT, de Oliveira MN, Vidigal MTC, de Andrade Vieira W, Figueiredo CE, Blumenberg C, et al. Effectiveness of anesthetic solutions for pain control in lower third molar extraction surgeries: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25:1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03675-w
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes high quality original research papers as well as critical reviews relevant on diseases of the oral cavity, their treatment, epidemiology and associated biomaterials and their development.
