Article Data

  • Views 823
  • Dowloads 216

Systematic Reviews

Open Access

Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis

  • Ling Li1
  • Da-lei Sun1,*,

1Department of Stomatology, Hangzhou Normal University Affiliated Hospital, 310000 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2023.078 Vol.47,Issue 6,November 2023 pp.21-29

Submitted: 13 January 2023 Accepted: 28 February 2023

Published: 03 November 2023

*Corresponding Author(s): Da-lei Sun E-mail:


Over the last few years, numerous reports have lauded the efficacy of articaine hydrochloride as a local anesthetic (LA) in dental procedures. Numerous studies have shown that articaine outperforms lidocaine in various aspects of dental treatment, leading to its widespread adoption in both adults and children. Despite the publications of comparative studies, there remains a dearth of systematic reviews examining the adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in randomized controlled trials. The aim was to assess the available research on the adverse effects of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric dentistry. A comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared articaine with lidocaine in pediatric dentistry were included. Methodological quality assessment and risk of bias were determined for each of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of evidence for every research. A total of 333 studies were identified through electronic searches. After conducting primary and secondary assessments, eight studies were included for the final qualitative analysis. We found no difference in the probability of adverse reactions between articaine and lidocaine after treatment in pediatric patients (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.54–2.15), p = 0.83). However, a high heterogeneity was reported among the outcomes in the investigated studies (I2 = 57%), and the strength of the evidence was classified as “moderate” based on the GRADE approach. Besides, we found no significant difference in the probability of postoperative pain, postoperative soft tissue injury and edema between articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients following treatment. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine when used for pediatric dental procedures.


Articaine; Children; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Infiltration; Lidocaine

Cite and Share

Ling Li,Da-lei Sun. Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023. 47(6);21-29.


[1] Vreeland DL, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W, Weaver J. An evaluation of volumes and concentrations of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. Journal of Endodontics. 1989; 15: 6–12.

[2] MALAMED SF, GAGNON S, LEBLANC D. Efficacy of articaine: a new amide local anesthetic. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2000; 131: 635–642.

[3] Oertel R, Rahn R, Kirch W. Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 1997; 33: 417–425.

[4] Subramaniam S, Tennant M. A concise review of the basic biology and pharmacology of local analgesia. Australian Dental Journal. 2005; 50: S23–S30.

[5] Finder RL, Moore PA. Adverse drug reactions to local anesthesia. Dental Clinics of North America. 2002; 46: 747–757.

[6] Jakobs W, Ladwig B, Cichon P, Ortel R, Kirch W. Serum levels of articaine 2% and 4% in children. Anesthesia Progress. 1995; 42: 113–115.

[7] Sixou JL, Marie-Cousin A. Intraosseous anaesthesia in children with 4 % articaine and epinephrine 1:400,000 using computer-assisted systems. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2015; 16: 477–481.

[8] Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatric Dentistry. 1991; 13: 278–283.

[9] RAM D, AMIR E. Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2006; 16: 252–256.

[10] Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatric Dentistry. 2000; 22: 307–311.

[11] Katyal V. The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry. 2010; 38: 307–317.

[12] Nizharadze N, Mamaladze M, Chipashvili N, Vadachkoria D. Articaine—the best choice of local anesthetic in contemporary dentistry. Georgian Medical News. 2011; 15–23.

[13] Smith T, Urquiola R, Oueis H, Stenger J. Comparison of articaine and lidocaine in the pediatric population. The Journal of the Michigan Dental Association. 2014; 96: 34–37.

[14] Powell V. Articaine is superior to lidocaine in providing pulpal anesthesia. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2012; 143: 897–898.

[15] Leith R, Lynch K, O’Connell AC. Articaine use in children: a review. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2012; 13: 293–296.

[16] Taneja S, Singh A, Jain A. Anesthetic effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients during dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 42: 273–281.

[17] Gholami M, Banihashemrad A, Mohammadzadeh A, Ahrari F. The efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inducing palatal anesthesia for tooth extraction in different maxillary regions. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021; 79: 1643–1649.

[18] John M. Articaine and lignocaine. Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2011; 12: 21–22.

[19] Alzahrani F, Duggal MS, Munyombwe T, Tahmassebi JF. Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 28: 335–344.

[20] Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Australian Dental Journal. 2012; 57: 325–333.

[21] Carla M, Pablo SS, Mariane C, Michele B. Efficacy and adverse events of 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine on primary molar extraction: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2020; 47: 1031–1040.

[22] Elheeny AAH. Articaine efficacy and safety in young children below the age of four years: an equivalent parallel randomized control trial. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020; 30: 547–555.

[23] Khanna SR, Rao D, Panwar S, Ameen S. An in vivo, randomized, controlled comparative evaluation of efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4% articaine using buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars of children aged 6 to 8 years. Quintessence International. 2021; 52: 780–786.

[24] Ma Y. Effectiveness and satisfaction evaluation of articaine in the treatment of children’s dental and endodontic diseases. Electronic Journal of General Stomatology. 2019; 6: 25–26.

[25] Tong HJ, Alzahrani FS, Sim YF, Tahmassebi JF, Duggal M. Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children’s dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 28: 347–360.

[26] Kämmerer PW, Palarie V, Daubländer M, Bicer C, Shabazfar N, Brüllmann D, et al. Comparison of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar block for tooth extraction: double-blind randomized clinical trial of anesthetic efficacy. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012; 113: 495–499.

[27] Ho JTF, van Riet TCT, Afrian Y, Sem KTHCJ, Spijker R, de Lange J, et al. Adverse effects following dental local anesthesia: a literature review. Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2021; 21: 507.

[28] Brickhouse TH, Unkel JH, Webb MD, Best AM, Hollowell RL. Articaine use in children among dental practitioners. Pediatric Dentistry. 2008; 30: 516–521.

[29] Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Friedman CS, Plotzke OB. Use of articaine local anesthesia in children under 4 years of age—a retrospective report. Anesthesia Progress. 1989; 36: 268–271.

[30] Brignardello-Petersen R. Articaine and lidocaine probably have similar effects in 3- to 4-year-old children undergoing pulpotomy of a primary molar. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2020; 151: e93.

[31] Thiem DGE, Schnaith F, Van Aken CME, Köntges A, Kumar VV, Al-Nawas B, et al. Extraction of mandibular premolars and molars: comparison between local infiltration via pressure syringe and inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018; 22: 1523–1530.

[32] Flanagan DF. The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations. Local and Regional Anesthesia. 2016; 9: 1–6.

[33] Shree R, Kedia MR, Toshi T, Raj N, Anand K, Shahi N. A cross-sectional study on the evidence-based dentistry, perception basis, and use of articaine among dental practitioners. Cureus. 2022; 14: e32510.

[34] 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.

[35] Kämmerer PW, Schneider D, Palarie V, Schiegnitz E, Daubländer M. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction—a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2017; 21: 397–403.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time