Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment

Medications and Orthodontic Tooth Movement: What Accelerates and Diminishes Tooth Movement?

The biological aspect of orthodontic tooth movement is influenced by the magnitude and duration of the applied force. This initiates signaling cascades essential for bone remodeling, which involve activating various cell signaling pathways that enhance the metabolism of the periodontal ligament, leading to localized bone resorption and deposition. This process facilitates tooth movement on the pressure side and promotes healing on the tension side. The remodeling associated with orthodontic tooth movement is an inflammatory reaction involving mediators. Key components in this process include hormones, systemic influences, cyclic adenosine monophosphate, specific cytokines like interleukin 1, colony-stimulating factors, calcium, collagenase, and prostaglandins, all of which are essential for the biological adjustments necessary for tooth movement. Medications that influence molecular pathways critical for the homeostasis of periodontal tissues or that affect changes during orthodontic tooth movement and clastic cell regulation can potentially modulate tooth movement. With the recent increase in prescription medication use, it is essential for clinicians to be aware of medication consumption in prospective patients and understand its potential impact on orthodontic treatment. This review aimed to explore the effects of commonly prescribed medications on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement, thoroughly review the existing evidence on this topic, and identify potential areas for future research.

Interventions to Reduce Intra-Operative and Post-Operative Pain Associated with Routine Dental Procedures in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

implementing appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain related to routine dental procedures in paediatric patients could enhance children's ability to manage dental care. The aim of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of and provide recommendations for interventions that can be used to reduce intra-operative and post-operative pain associated with routine paediatric dental procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) was conducted. Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of the interventions using the Cohen's d standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. The GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

The review included forty-five RCTs comprising 3093 children. Thirty-seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, which showed the effectiveness of behavioural interventions (SMD = -0.50, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.18), mechanoreceptor and thermal receptor stimulation (SMD = -1.38, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.73) for intra-operative pain, and pre-emptive oral analgesics (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.33) for reducing post-operative pain in children receiving routine dental care.

CONCLUSION

The GRADE results for these interventions were strong recommendation (IB) for their use, based on moderate evidence and their benefits far outweighing the harm, and they can be delivered readily with minimal training to reduce the pain experience of paediatric patients.

Preemptive use of anti-inflammatories and analgesics in oral surgery: a review of systematic reviews

Objectives: This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. Materials and methods: The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure (n = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach (n = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. Conclusion: Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Metronidazole and Ketoprofen-Loaded Mesoporous Magnesium Carbonate for Rapid Treatment of Acute Periodontitis In Vitro

In the clinical pharmacological treatment of acute periodontitis, local periodontal administration is expected to be preferable to systemic administration. However, the action of the active medicine component is hindered and diminished by the limitation of drug solubility, which does not provide timely relief of the enormous pain being suffered by patients. This study aimed to develop a mesoporous magnesium carbonate (MMC) medicine loading system consisting of MMC, metronidazole (MET), and ketoprofen (KET), which was noted as MET-KET@MMC. A solvent evaporation process was utilized to load MET and KET in MMC. Scanning electron microscopy, nitrogen sorption, thermogravimetric analysis, and X-ray diffraction were performed on the MET-KET@MMC. The rapid drug release properties were also investigated through the drug release curve. The rapid antiseptic property against Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) and the rapid anti-inflammatory property (within 1 min) were analyzed in vitro. The cytotoxicity of MET-KET@MMC was tested in direct contact with human gingival cells and human oral keratinocytes. Crystallizations of MET and KET were completely suppressed in MMC. As compared to crystalline MET and KET, MMC induced higher apparent solubility and rapid drug release, resulting in 8.76 times and 3.43 times higher release percentages of the drugs, respectively. Over 70.11% of MET and 85.97% of KET were released from MMC within 1 min, resisting bacteria and reducing inflammation. MET-KET@MMC nanoparticles enhanced the solubility of drugs and possess rapid antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. The MET-KET@MMC is a promising candidate for the pharmacotherapy of acute periodontitis with drugs, highlighting a significant clinical potential of MMC-based immediate drug release systems.

Effect of pre-operative administration of ibuprofen in children undergoing extraction for reducing post-operative pain: a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial

Introduction Administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before tooth extraction may reduce post-surgical pain, but there is a lack of research.Aims To compare pain and anxiety in paediatric tooth extraction patients receiving a pre-operative NSAID vs placebo.Design Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Setting Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University's dental clinic in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Materials and methods Eligible paediatric tooth extraction patients were randomised to group A, which received NSAID pre-operatively, or group B, which received the placebo.Interventions A research coordinator measured participants before extraction, and then 3 hours and 24 hours post-extraction.Main outcome methods The Wong-Baker FACES scale and the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (faces).Results There were 56 participants (28 in each group). Pain and anxiety scores were not statistically significantly different between the two groups before or 24 hours post-extraction. However, group A had significantly lower pain (-1.3151, p = 0.0063) and anxiety scores (-0.6071, p = 0.0081) compared to group B three hours post-extraction.Discussion Pre-operative administration of NSAIDs in paediatric dental patients was associated with significantly lower post-extraction pain and anxiety.Conclusions Clinicians should consider making NSAID administration before paediatric tooth extraction part of their clinical protocol.

Post-operative discomforts in children after extraction of primary teeth

Objectives

This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate discomfort after extraction of deciduous teeth under local anesthesia. The primary objective was to describe the prevalence of post‐extraction pain (PEP), post‐extraction bleeding (PEB), post‐extraction biting injury (PEBI), and analgesic usage in children. The secondary objective was to define whether it is possible to determine a profile of patients or a type of extraction procedure predictive to PEP, administration of analgesics, PEB, or PEBI.

Methods

One hundred and twenty‐five children, aged 3–13 years, with indications of at least one deciduous tooth extraction, were included. Immediately after extraction, information concerning the patient and the extraction were collected. Eighteen to 32 hr after extraction, parents were called by phone to request reports concerning the onset and intensity of PEP assessed using the Wong‐Baker Faces (WBF) scale, the administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to their children, and the appearance of PEB and/or PEBI.

Results

Of the children, 37.3% reported PEP (WBF ≥2), but 23.3% of these children did not receive any analgesic drugs to help relieve pain. Pain appeared before 3 hr after extraction in 69% of the children. Higher incidences of PEP and usage of analgesics were found both in the group of children with unfavorable socioeconomic level compared to favorable level and in the group with pre‐operative pain compared to no pre‐operative pain (p < .05).

Conclusions

About a third of the children reported pain after extraction, but the instructions for pain relief were not followed by all parents. The socioeconomic level of the young patient and the pain felt during the extraction were important predictors of discomfort. Therefore, our study could help the dentist to provide information on predicted post‐operative discomfort and to allow suitable care depending on the patient's profile or procedure.

Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review

Background

There is an uncertainty regarding how to optimally prevent and/or reduce pain after dental treatment on children and adolescents.

Aim

To conduct a systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment to prevent postoperative pain in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years.

Design

A PICO-protocol was constructed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075589). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Cinahl, and EMBASE, November 2018. The researchers (reading in pairs) assessed identified studies independently, according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the PRISMA-statement.

Results

3,963 scientific papers were identified, whereof 216 read in full text. None met the inclusion criteria, leading to an empty SR. Ethical issues were identified related to the recognized knowledge gap in terms of challenges to conduct studies that are well-designed from methodological as well as ethical perspectives.

Conclusions

There is no scientific support for the use or rejection of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment in order to prevent or reduce postoperative pain in children and adolescents. Thus, no guidelines can be formulated on this issue based solely on scientific evidence. Well-designed studies on how to prevent pain from developing after dental treatment in children and adolescents is urgently needed.

Potential Novel Strategies for the Treatment of Dental Pulp-Derived Pain: Pharmacological Approaches and Beyond

The diagnosis and management of pain is an everyday occurrence in dentistry, and its effective control is essential to ensure the wellbeing of patients. Most tooth-associated pain originates from the dental pulp, a highly vascularized and innervated tissue, which is encased within mineralized dentin. It plays a crucial role in the sensing of stimuli from the local environment, such as infections (i.e. dental caries) and traumatic injury, leading to a local inflammatory response and subsequently to an increase in intra-pulp pressure, activating nerve endings. However, thermal, chemical, and mechanical stimuli also have the ability to generate dental pulp pain, which presents mechanisms highly specific to this tissue and which have to be considered in pain management. Traditionally, the management of dental pulp pain has mostly been pharmacological, using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, or restorative (i.e. removal of dental caries), or a combination of both. Both research areas continuously present novel and creative approaches. This includes the modulation of thermo-sensitive transient receptor potential cation channels (TRP) by newly designed drugs in pharmacological research, as well as the use of novel biomaterials, stem cells, exosomes and physical stimulation to obtain pulp regeneration in regenerative medicine. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present an up-to-date account of causes underlying dental pain, novel treatments involving the control of pain and inflammation and the induction of pulp regeneration, as well as insights in pain in dentistry from the physiological, pharmacological, regenerative and clinical perspectives.

Preemptive Analgesia by Paracetamol, Ibuprofen or Placebo in Pediatric Dental Care: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative pain among children who received an oral dose of paracetamol, ibuprofen or a placebo, prior to tooth extractions.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty minutes prior to dental treatment, children received a liquid dosage, fruit flavored and orange colored, of paracetamol, ibuprofen, or a placebo. Data accessed included children's dental history, their behavior, and their feeling of pain or anxiety according to Wong-Baker FACES: before treatment, following local anesthesia, and following treatment. Parents were interviewed by telephone regarding their children's need for a postoperative analgesia (paracetamol or ibuprofen), and their feeling of pain at four and 24 hours posttreatment.

RESULTS

Parents reported administering paracetamol or nurofen following the dental procedure to 9/43 (21%), 2/33 (6%) and 12/29 (41%) of the children in the preemptive paracetamol, ibuprofen, and placebo groups, respectively. For the 3 groups, mean pain assessment were similar: around the middle of the Wong-Baker FACES scale at baseline, slightly higher following local anesthesia, and low (pain-free) at four and 24 hours postoperative.

CONCLUSION

Children who received paracetamol or ibuprofen prior to tooth extractions were less likely to need an analgesic following treatment, compared to children who received a placebo.

Postoperative pain profile in 10-15-year-olds after bilateral extraction of maxillary premolars

PURPOSE

To study pain perception in 10-15-year-olds, during and after uncomplicated extractions of bilateral maxillary premolars. The study investigated pain's natural course and made comparisons between the first and second extractions.

METHODS

31 Swedish children in need of orthodontic treatment were identified and consecutively enrolled. Tooth extractions followed a standardised protocol and the two teeth were extracted with at least 10 days between. The participants rated pain intensity using visual analogue scale (VAS) at 14 different time points from treatment and 7 days forward.

RESULTS

The pain intensity profile followed the same pattern for all patients. Pain intensity peaked 2 h after extractions (mean VAS_PI 27.3, SD 20.8; median 23.0) when moderate pain intensity (VAS_PI ≥ 40) was registered for 16 (28%) of 57 cases. After that, there was a rapid decrease in pain intensity notable already at 4 h after extractions. There were no statistically significant differences in any VAS_PI measurements between the first and second extractions, sexes, or different age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the participants who undergo uncomplicated bilateral extraction of maxillary premolars experience mild to moderate levels of postoperative pain during a short period of time, with no differences between the first and second extractions. Bilateral tooth extractions is a suitable model for further studies on pain management.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.

RESULTS

We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Effect of intravenous paracetamol as pre-emptive compared to preventive analgesia in a pediatric dental setting: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of pre-emptive analgesia compared to preventive regimen, managing postoperative pain is still controversial.

AIM

Evaluating the efficacy of intravenous (IV) paracetamol as pre-emptive analgesia compared to preventive post-treatment administration in pediatric dental setting.

DESIGN

In a prospective trial, 60 noncooperative children of ASA I, II aged 3-10 years who underwent dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups. Pre-emptive group (n = 30) received 15 mg/kg of IV paracetamol before the start of treatment. Preventive group (n = 30) received 15 mg/kg of paracetamol at the end of treatment. Analgesic efficacy was measured by visual analog scale of faces (VASOF), percentage of children received postoperative analgesia.

RESULTS

The VASOF results in the pre-emptive group were significantly lower compared to the preventive group at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h (0.0146, 0.0188, 0.0085, and 0.0001, respectively). Less children in the pre-emptive group received supplemental fentanyl postoperatively compared to the preventive group (27.6%, 58.6%, respectively, P = 0.0170). Time to first rescue dose of fentanyl postoperatively in the pre-emptive group was later than in the preventive group (P = 0.0432).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of IV paracetamol pre-emptively provides lower pain scores, and a decreased percentage of children required pain relief and less amount of postoperative opioids, compared to preventive administration.

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.