Preemptive effects of ibuprofen and nimesulide on postoperative pain control after open flap periodontal surgeries: A randomized placebo-controlled split-mouth clinical trial

Opioid requirement and pain intensity after mandibular surgeries with dexmedetomidine administration in two ways: intraoperative infusion versus bolus injection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the opioid requirement and pain intensity after surgeries of mandibular fractures with administration of dexmedetomidine by two approaches of infusion and single bolus.

METHODS

In this double-blind clinical trial, the participants were randomized and matched in terms of age and gender in two groups (infusion and bolus). In both groups, the amount of narcotic used, hemodynamic indices, oxygen saturation, and pain intensity were collected based on the ten-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 7 time points for 24 h. SPSS version 24 software was used for data analysis. A significance level of less than 5% was considered.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, ASA class, and duration of surgery (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of nausea and vomiting and subsequently receiving anti-nausea medication (P>0.05). The need for opioid consumption after surgery was not different in two groups (P>0.05). Infusion of dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative pain more rapidly than its single bolus dose (P<0.05). However, over time, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of changes in oxygen saturation variables (P>0.05). Homodynamic indices including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in the bolus group were significantly lower than the infusion group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Administration of dexmedetomidine in the form of infusion can reduce postoperative pain better than bolus injection, with less probability of hypotension and bradycardia.

Preemptive analgesia in dental implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

To assess the effectiveness of preemptive analgesia in dental implant surgery in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Material and Methods

The present study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and registered in PROSPERO database CRD42020168757. A search without restrictions regarding language or date of publication was conducted in six databases and gray literature. A random effect meta-analysis compared the efficacy of preemptive analgesia compared to placebo through pooled OR and 95%CI. The interpretation of results followed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach together with the magnitude of the effect according to GRADE guidelines.

Results

Four studies were included in the review and three were incorporated into the meta-analysis. All studies demonstrated that preemptive analgesia contributed to a significant improvement in the postoperative pain control. However, the overall pooled standard mean difference (SMD) showed that preemptive analgesia had small effects compared to placebo in reducing pain (SMD: -0.45; IC: -0.83; -0.08) with low certainty of the evidence. Our meta-analysis showed that the magnitude of the effect was bigger six to eight hours after the surgery (large effect), compared to the time of one to two hours after the surgery (small effect).

Conclusions

Preemptive analgesia may have a positive effect in reducing pain compared to not using preemptive medication, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Key words:Preemptive analgesia, postoperative pain, dental implant surgery, systematic review.