PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020215314

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth.

Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application.

The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates.

Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

This study aimed to systematically review the pain and flare-up effects of calcium hydroxide (CH) as intracanal medication (ICM) in non-vital mature teeth.

Electronic-databases searching for published and grey literature and manual searching were conducted. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included comparing CH to other ICMs in non-vital mature teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 Cochrane tool. The main outcomes were pain and flare-up. Qualitative and quantitative analysis, wherever applicable, was performed. The certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Sixteen articles were included in 6 comparisons at different time points for different outcomes. CH reduced pain risk than no ICM within the 1–14-days interval (p < 0.05) and than triple-antibiotic paste within the first day (p < 0.05) and was similar to corticosteroid/antibiotics combination (p > 0.05). Chlorhexidine (CHX) or CH/CHX, however, reduced pain levels than CH alone (p < 0.05). CH showed higher flare-up risk than CHX (p < 0.05). CoE, however, ranged from very low to moderate.

Most comparisons for different outcomes are based on very few studies, mostly low-powered, with an overall low CoE. Thus, the available evidence is considered insufficient to either support or refute CH effectiveness or to recommend one ICM over another. Therefore, further well-designed, larger RCTs are required.

PROSPERO database Identifier: CRD42016041953

This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of preheating on the hardness of nanofilled, nanoceramic, nanohybrid, and microhybrid resin composites.

An electronic search of papers on MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost was performed. Only in vitro studies were included. Non-English studies, case reports, clinical trials, and review articles were excluded. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to quantify differences in the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between the non-preheated and preheated modes for both the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (p < 0.05). The microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the top surface in the preheated mode (78.1 ± 2.9) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (67.4 ± 4.0; p < 0.001). Moreover, the microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the bottom surface in the preheated mode (71.8 ± 3.8) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (57.5 ± 5.7, p < 0.001).

Although the results reported in the reviewed studies showed great variability, sufficient scientific evidence was found to support the hypothesis that preheating can improve the hardness of resin composites.