Efficacy and safety of additional 200-mg dose of celecoxib in adult patients with postoperative pain following extraction of impacted third mandibular molar: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study in Japan

Current and emerging COX inhibitors for treating postoperative pain following oral surgery

INTRODUCTION

The numerous drugs in the NSAID class are often used to treat acute postoperative pain associated with oral surgery such as impacted third-molar extractions. These drugs are effective in this setting and dental pain studies often serve as models for acute pain relief and for registration of analgesics. With numerous cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors available as monotherapy, for use in combination with analgesic regimens, and in different doses and formulations, it was our aim to determine if there were clear-cut distinctions among these products and dosing regimens.

AREAS COVERED

This is a literature review of recent randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating NSAIDs for use in postoperative pain management following oral surgery. Of particular interest were head-to-head studies, which might offer some insight into comparative effectiveness.

EXPERT OPINION

Postoperative oral surgery pain is largely managed in real-world clinical practice using NSAIDs, either alone or in combination, and there is good evidence supporting their use especially in multimodal therapy. Head-to-head and comparative studies do not show a clear-cut 'optimal NSAID' in this setting, although ibuprofen, ketoprofen, dexketoprofen, and naproxen have gained most acceptance. Combination therapy with other analgesics or adjuvants is largely accepted.

Effect of preemptive photobiomodulation associated with nimesulide on the postsurgical outcomes, oxidative stress, and quality of life after third molar surgery: a randomized, split-mouth, controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the effect of photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and nimesulide on inflammatory parameters, biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation, and quality of life after lower third molar (L3M) surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized, two-factor, triple-blind, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial was performed with 40 volunteers who required bilateral L3M removal. Patients were allocated depending on the use or not of 100 mg nimesulide 1 hbefore surgery, as well as the use or not of LLLT in the preoperative period.

RESULTS

Pain peaks occurred after 6 h (nimesulide-placebo [N-P] group) and 8 h (nimesulide group). In the N-P group, LLLT resulted in significantly lower mean pain scores than the subgroup without LLLT after 4 h (p = 0.009) and 6 h (p = 0.048). As for edema, a shorter distance between the mandibular angle and the outer canthus of the eyes after 7 days (p = 0.037) and a smaller cumulative effect (p = 0.036) were observed in the N-P group associated with LLLT. A direct effect between LLLT (p = 0.047) and a reduction in the mean scores of overall dissatisfaction with quality of life was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive use of nimesulide only delayed peak pain. LLLT reduced edema, trismus, and contributed to a better perception of quality of life. Nimesulide inhibits peroxidation by increasing GSH and stopping neutrophil migration. The benefit of the association of both strategies was not superior to the use of LLLT alone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Translational study with impact on clinical-surgical protocols involving L3M surgery related to pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods.

Combination of etodolac and dexamethasone improves preemptive analgesia in third molar surgery: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, controlled, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to investigate the use of dexamethasone (DEX) and etodolac (ETO) as preemptive analgesia before mandibular third molar extraction.

METHODS

Patients were divided into three groups (n = 20 teeth each) based on the drug administered: DEX 8 mg (DEX); DEX 8 mg plus ETO 300 mg (DEX + ETO), and ETO 300 mg (ETO). Paracetamol (750 mg) tablets were administered as rescue analgesics. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h and 7 days postoperatively. Edema and trismus were assessed 48 and 72 h postoperatively. All data were subjected to statistical analysis, where a P value < .05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

VAS scores and the number of rescue analgesics taken were lower in the DEX + ETO group than in the other groups (P < .001 and P = .014, respectively). At 48 h, trismus was similar among all groups; however, the ETO group showed the highest trismus 7 days postoperatively (P < .05). Edema was similar among all groups at all time points (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The combined use of the anti-inflammatory drugs, DEX and ETO, resulted in better pain control and the need for fewer rescue analgesics than the use of either drug alone, which indicated their effectiveness in mandibular third molar extractions preoperatively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This drug combination can lead to less pain, edema, and trismus and reduce the use of rescue analgesics in the postoperative period.

A Comparative Study of Oral Analgesics for Postoperative Pain After Minor Oral Surgery

We compared the effects of preoperative administration of diclofenac sodium, celecoxib, and acetaminophen on postoperative pain in patients undergoing minor oral surgery under general anesthesia. One hundred twenty-eight patients were randomly divided into 4 groups preoperatively treated with diclofenac sodium 50 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, acetaminophen 1000 mg, or placebo. Postoperative pain was managed using intravenous patient-controlled infusion of fentanyl. Assessments included levels of postoperative pain by using visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 4, 5, and 6 hours after administration of the test drug; consumption of fentanyl up to each time point; and time to first requirement for fentanyl. Our study demonstrated that, for diclofenac sodium and celecoxib in comparison with placebo, there were significantly lower VAS scores at 4, 5, and 6 hours after oral administration of the study drug; a longer period of time to first requirement for fentanyl after surgery; and less consumption of postoperative fentanyl. A similar analgesic effect versus placebo was noted for acetaminophen but only at the 5- and 6-hour time points. In contrast, no significant differences in VAS scores at 4 hours after administration or time to first requirement for fentanyl were observed between acetaminophen and placebo. Furthermore, no significant differences in measurements were observed between the study drugs at any time point. These findings suggest that oral administration of celecoxib 400 mg is suitable for controlling postoperative pain, and as effective as diclofenac sodium 50 mg. Acetaminophen 1000 mg also exerts analgesic effect with slower onset for postoperative pain.

Decreased post-operative pain using a sublingual injection of dexamethasone (8 mg) in lower third molar surgery

Background

Every patient who undergoes mandibular third molar surgery is concerned about post-operative pain. Indeed, previous researchers have used various methods to treat such pain. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of sublingual injection of dexamethasone (8 mg) to treat post-operative pain after mandibular third molar surgery.

Method

This was a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, clinical trial, involving 48 healthy patients who required surgical removal of two mandibular third molars with similar bilateral positions. All operations were performed by the same experienced surgeon. The patients were randomized into a study group (8 mg dexamethasone injection) and a placebo group (normal saline injection). Both interventions were injected into the sublingual space immediately after local anesthesia, 30 min before the first incision. The study group received an 8 mg dexamethasone injection, while the placebo group received a normal saline injection. The wash period between the patients' two operations was 3 to 4 weeks. Pain was assessed by recording the number of analgesic tablets (rescue drug) consumed, as well as by noting the patients' responses to the visual analog scale (VAS) on the first, second, and third days after surgery.

Results

The study group differed significantly from the placebo group in terms of VAS score and analgesic consumption.

Conclusion

Dexamethasone (8 mg), injected sublingually, significantly eased post-operative pain after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar.

Comparative Assessment of the Effect of Ibuprofen and Etodolac on Edema, Trismus, and Pain in Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of ibuprofen (IBU) and etodolac (ETO) for controlling pain, edema, and trismus after extraction of lower third molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty adolescents and adults with 2 impacted mandibular-third molars (in similar positions) were selected for the study. Patients were randomly assigned either to the IBU group (600 mg of IBU 3 times a day for 3 days) or to the ETO group (300 mg of ETO 3 times a day for 3 days). Drugs were administered immediately after dental extraction.

RESULTS

During the first 2 days after extraction, swelling was more pronounced in the IBU group than in the ETO group (P = .033). Seven days after surgery, there was no difference in the degree of edema between the groups. At the 2- and 7-day evaluation points, mouth opening was significantly more reduced in the IBU group than in the ETO group (P < .05). After the first 6 hours, the ETO group had more effective pain relief (P < .05), but after this time point, both groups reported similar degrees of relief. Compared with the IBU group, the ETO group had a lower need for administration of additional rescue analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

After extraction of impacted lower third molars, we found that swelling, trismus, and pain were more effectively controlled with ETO than with IBU.

A split-mouth, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study to analyze the pre-emptive effect of etoricoxib 120 mg on inflammatory events following removal of unerupted mandibular third molars

Pain after third molar extraction has been considered the most suitable pharmaceutical model to evaluate acute pain. This study aimed to evaluate the pre-emptive analgesic/anti-inflammatory efficacy of etoricoxib 120 mg following mandibular third molar surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with patients undergoing the surgical removal of mandibular third molars. All volunteers were allocated randomly to receive either etoricoxib 120 mg or placebo 1h preoperatively, and inflammatory events were evaluated. An estimated sample of 18 surgical units per group was required based on a pilot study (95% confidence level and 80% statistical power). Rescue medication was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method through log-rank Mantel-Cox test and Pearson linear correlation (P<0.05). Pre-emptive etoricoxib reduced postoperative pain scores significantly in comparison to placebo (P<0.001), with a pain score peak at 6h after surgery (P<0.001). The mean rescue medication consumption was lower in the etoricoxib group compared to the placebo group over the study period (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups related to swelling and trismus. The pre-emptive administration of etoricoxib 120 mg significantly reduced the postoperative pain intensity and the need for rescue medication, but did not reduce swelling or trismus.

Single dose oral celecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2008, and updated in Issue 3, 2012. Celecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor usually prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Its effectiveness in acute pain was demonstrated in the earlier reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of celecoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was to 31 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral celecoxib or placebo for acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies for quality and extracted data. We converted summed pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) into dichotomous information, yielding the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours. We used this to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), for one patient to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief with celecoxib who would not have done so with placebo. We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (1785 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The two new studies in this update had been identified in the earlier update, but data were not available. There remain three potentially relevant unpublished studies for which data are not available at this time.The NNT for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg compared with placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over four to six hours was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 5.6) and 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.0) respectively. The median time to use of rescue medication was 6.6 hours with celecoxib 200 mg, 8.4 hours with celecoxib 400 mg, and 2.3 hours with placebo. The proportion of participants requiring rescue medication over 24 hours was 74% with celecoxib 200 mg, 63% for celecoxib 400 mg, and 91% for placebo. The NNT to prevent one patient using rescue medication was 4.8 (95% CI 3.5 to 7.7) and 3.5 (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6) for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg respectively. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and were experienced by a similar proportion of participants in the celecoxib and placebo groups. One serious adverse event that was probably related to celecoxib was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral celecoxib is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain relief. Indirect comparison suggests that the 400 mg dose has similar efficacy to ibuprofen 400 mg.