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.