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.

Automated summary

The meta-analysis found that ropivacaine has a longer anesthetic time compared to lidocaine/adrenaline and similar anesthesia to bupivacaine. The study suggests that ropivacaine infiltration provides longer anesthesia compared to lidocaine and articaine in dental procedures, but not to bupivacaine.