Does Articaine Provide an Advantage over Lidocaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving profound pulpal anesthesia can be difficult in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. This study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: in adults with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis who are undergoing endodontic treatment, what is the comparative efficacy of articaine compared with lidocaine in reducing pain and incidence of adverse events? METHODS: A protocol was prepared and registered on PROSPERO. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov by using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion and quality. Weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five studies were initially identified from the search; 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. For combined studies, articaine was more likely than lidocaine to achieve successful anesthesia (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.47; P = .0006; I(2) = 40%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lidocaine (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 0.50-31.62; P = .19; I(2) = 59%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies articaine was superior to lidocaine (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.40-3.44; P = .0006; I(2) = 30%), with further subgroup analysis showing no difference for mandibular block anesthesia (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.87-2.38; P = .16; I(2) = 0%). When used for supplemental infiltration after successful mandibular block anesthesia, articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.97-6.39; P < .0001; I(2) = 9%). There were no reports of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials provides level 1 evidence to support the use of articaine for patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. There is a significant advantage to using articaine over lidocaine for supplementary infiltration after mandibular block anesthesia but no advantage when used for mandibular block anesthesia alone or for maxillary infiltration.

Erratum: Correction in Co-Author name To: Reliability of Quality Assessments in Research Synthesis: Securing the Highest Quality Bioinformation for HIT.

[This corrects the article on p. 691 in vol. 8, PMID: 23055612.].

Effects of mouse genotype on bone wound healing and irradiation-induced delay of healing.

We tested the effects of mouse genotype (C57BL/6NHsd, NOD/SCID, SAMR1, and SAMP6) and ionizing irradiation on bone wound healing. Unicortical wounds were made in the proximal tibiae, and the time course of spontaneous healing and effects of irradiation were monitored radiographically and histologically. There was reproducible healing beginning with intramedullary osteogenesis, subsequent bone resorption by osteoclasts, gradual bridging of the cortical wound, and re-population of medullary hematopoietic cells. The most rapid wound closure was noted in SAMR1 mice, followed by SAMP6, C57BL/6NHsd, and NOD/SCID. Ionizing irradiation (20 Gy) to the leg significantly delayed bone wound healing in mice of all four genotypes. Mice with genetically-determined predisposition to early osteopenia (SAMP6) or with immune deficiency (NOD/SCID) had impairments in bone wound healing. These mouse models should be valuable for determining the effects of irradiation on bone healing and also for the design and testing of novel bone growth-enhancing drugs and mitigators of ionizing irradiation.

Reliability of Quality Assessments in Research Synthesis: Securing the Highest Quality Bioinformation for HIT.

Current trends in bio-medicine include research synthesis and dissemination of bioinformation by means of health (bio) information technology (H[b] IT). Research must secure the validity and reliability of assessment tools to quantify research quality in the pursuit of the best available evidence. Our concerted work in this domain led to the revision of three instruments for that purpose, including the stringent characterization of inter-rater reliability and coefficient of agreement. It is timely and critical to advance the methodological development of the science of research synthesis by strengthening the reliability of existing measure of research quality in order to ensure H[b] IT efficacy and effectiveness.

From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance.

Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the "systematic review".The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias.Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care.