A meta-analysis on the efficacy of the ropivacaine infiltration in comparison with other dental anesthetics.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety profile of ropivacaine in comparison with other dental anesthetics in different clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was registered in the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020205580). PubMed and Scholar Google were consulted to identify clinical trials using ropivacaine in comparison with other local anesthetic drugs for any dental procedure. Articles comparing ropivacaine and other dental anesthetics were assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data from reports without a high risk of bias were extracted (anesthetic and adverse effects) and analyzed using the Review Manager Software 5.3. for Windows and the Risk Reduction Calculator. RESULTS: Ropivacaine produces a longer anesthetic time when compared with lidocaine/adrenaline (n = 260; p = 0.00001) and similar anesthesia than bupivacaine (n = 190). CONCLUSIONS: Data of this study indicate that ropivacaine infiltration produces a longer anesthetic time when compared with lidocaine and articaine but not when compared to bupivacaine in dental procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ropivacaine was more effective than lidocaine for dental anesthesia. For this reason, the manufacture of a ropivacaine dental cartridge with a suitable concentration could be an important advancement for clinical practice.

Pharmacological Control of Complications Following to Third Molar Removal: Evidence Based on A Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and dexamethasone on the trismus, postsurgical pain, facial swelling, as well as the analgesic consumption after third molar surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The reports were identified in the most important medical databases. Those studies that met the requirements were fully assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each report was evaluated with the Oxford Quality Scale and using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Each meta-analysis was done using the technique of mean difference and 95% confidence intervals employing a random effects model with the Review Manager 5.3., from the Cochrane Library. Significant statistical difference was accepted when the p value was less than 0.05 on the test of overall effect (Z value). RESULTS: Qualitative evaluation was done using the data of 330 patients extracted from seven articles and the quantitative assessment with data of 200 patients from three reports. It was not observed difference among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and dexamethasone in any of the clinical effectiveness indicators. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of our meta-analysis indicate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and dexamethasone have good therapeutic effect for the management of inflammatory complications following to third molar surgery.