Systematic review reveals low-certainty benefits for 4% articaine and intraosseous anaesthesia during dental procedures in children with MIH, suggesting a need for higher-quality trials.
Background Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) is frequently associated with hypersensitivity, dental anxiety and reduced efficacy of local anaesthesia, complicating pain control during dental treatment in children. Aim To evaluate, based exclusively on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the effectiveness of different local anaesthetic techniques, agents and adjunctive interventions in reducing pain during dental treatment of MIH-affected teeth in children. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251150485). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and LILACS were searched up to September 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs involving children and adolescents (6 – 18 years-of-age) with MIH, assessing pain outcomes during dental procedures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results Eight RCTs were included. Low-certainty evidence suggested that intraosseous anaesthesia and 4% articaine may reduce intra-operative pain compared with conventional techniques or 2% lidocaine. Adjunctive cryotherapy and pre-emptive ibuprofen showed potential benefits, but evidence was of very low certainty and limited to single trials. Findings for photobiomodulation were inconsistent across studies. Most trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding and reliance on subjective pain outcomes. Conclusion Current evidence supporting specific pain management strategies for MIH-affected teeth is limited and of low certainty. Whilst 4% articaine and intraosseous anaesthesia appear promising, well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with standardised pain outcomes are required to inform robust clinical recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lygidakis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: