ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Selection of the safest local anesthetic for dental treatment in medically compromised patients: A comprehensive review.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Local anesthetics are essential in dental practice, but their systemic effects can pose significant risks for medically compromised patients. This review aims to identify and evaluate the safest local anesthetic agents for use in dental procedures in patients with systemic medical conditions to minimize adverse outcomes and improve clinical safety. To achieve this, a comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published from January 2000 to April 2025. Thirty-five studies addressing local anesthetic use in patients with cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal impairment, diabetes, thyroid disorders, bleeding tendencies, pregnancy, elderly populations, and amide allergies were included. Data were synthesized to develop clinical recommendations for anesthetic selection based on systemic conditions. Lidocaine remains the standard amide anesthetic, with a strong safety profile in pregnancy and diabetes. Mepivacaine, due to minimal vasodilation, is preferred in cardiovascular and thyroid disorders. Articaine's rapid plasma metabolism benefits patients with liver or kidney impairment. Prilocaine is effective for hepatic impairment but poses methemoglobinemia risks, especially in pregnancy. Chloroprocaine, an ester anesthetic, is recommended for patients with confirmed amide allergies. Emerging strategies, such as buffered formulations, low epinephrine anesthetics, and ultrasound guided techniques, may enhance safety in high risk groups. Local anesthetic selection must be tailored to each patient's medical status. Mepivacaine, lidocaine, and articaine are among the safest agents for various systemic conditions. An evidence based, condition specific approach enhances safety and treatment outcomes in medically compromised dental patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.