Analgesic and anti-inflammatory dose–response relationship of 7.5 and 15mg meloxicam after lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study

Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Method for Detection and Quantification of Meloxicam and 5'-Carboxymeloxicam in Oral Fluid Samples

A sensitive, selective and particularly fast method of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was developed and validated for the determination of meloxicam and its main metabolite, 5'-carboxymeloxicam, in oral fluid samples. Meloxicam and its major metabolite were separated using a Shim-Pack XR-ODS 75 L × 2.0 column and C18 pre-column at 40 °C using a mixture of methanol and 10 mM ammonium acetate (80:20, v/v) with an injection flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. The total time of the analytical run was 5 min. Sixteen volunteers had oral fluid samples collected sequentially before and after taking a meloxicam tablet (15 mg) for up to 96 h. With the concentrations obtained, the pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using the Phoenix WinNonlin software. The parameters evaluated for meloxicam and 5'-carboxymeloxicam in the oral fluid samples showed linearity, accuracy, precision, medium-quality control (MQC-78.12 ng/mL), high-quality control (HQC-156.25 ng/mL), lower limits of quantification (LLOQ-0.6103 ng/mL), low-quality control (LQC-2.44 ng/mL), stability and dilution. Prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) was also detected and quantified in the oral fluid samples, demonstrating the possibility of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study with this methodology. All the parameters evaluated in the validation of the methodology in the oral fluid samples proved to be stable and within the possible variations in each of the described parameters. Through the data presented, the possibility of a PK/PD study was demonstrated, detecting and quantifying meloxicam, its main metabolite and PGE₂ in oral fluid samples using LC-MS/MS.

Early perioperative versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Post-orthopaedic operative pain is a serious concern that often requires the administration of analgesics; however, the optimal time of analgesic administration is still inconclusive. Perioperative analgesia is administrating pre-emptive analgesia before and during the surgery followed by postoperative analgesia to decrease the procedure associated nociceptive response. We aim to assess perioperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control after orthopaedic operations.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis involving randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WOS, and Cochrane until 28th May 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022336046.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 964 patients. All the included trials showed high risk of performance and detection biases because of lack of blinding. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing pain score after six hours (MD: -0.42 with 95% CI [-0.63, -0.21], p = .0001), 12 h (MD: -0.54 with 95% CI [-0.69, -0.39], p = .00001), and 24 h (MD: -0.23 with 95% CI [-0.36, -0.10]. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in improving patient global assessment scale after 12 h (MD: -0.66 with 95% CI [-0.86, -0.46], p = .00001), 24 h (MD: -0.30 with 95% CI [-0.49, -0.11, p = .002), and 48 h (MD: -0.17 with 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01], p = .04). Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing patient-controlled analgesia (MD: -4.25 with 95% CI [-5.96, -2.54], p = .00001).

CONCLUSION

Short-term pain management after orthopaedic procedures is better accomplished with perioperative meloxicam than postoperative meloxicam. Before recommending perioperative meloxicam for pain control following orthopaedic surgeries, further multicentre trials are still warranted to examine the impact of perioperative meloxicam in different orthopaedic procedures.

Does the Low-Intensity Laser Protocol Affect Tissue Healing After Third Molar Removal?

PURPOSE

Studies have shown that laser therapy is a recommended therapy for improving the postoperative period in patients undergoing extraction of the third molars; however, there is still no definition regarding the best protocol to be used. The aim of this study was to measure and compare periodontal tissue healing using 2 different laser protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-blinded, randomized, prospective study with patients submitted to inferior third molar extraction was performed, with the sample divided into 3 groups according to the laser application protocol and followed for 6 months: group I, 10 J/cm²; group II, 30 J/cm²; and group III, sham. The primary variable was probing depth, and the secondary variables were trismus, facial edema, and pain.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 57 patients: 19 in group I, 20 in group II, and 18 in group III. Analysis of the variables showed statistically significant differences between both groups that received laser therapy, with values of 1.46 for edema control on the third day and 0.54 on the seventh day in group I (P = .017) and 1.26 and 0.52, respectively, in group II (P = .001) compared with 0.59 and 0.49, respectively, in the sham group (P = .702), as well as a statistically significant difference for the 10-J/cm² laser protocol for probing depth, with values of 7.58 mm preoperatively and 9.09 mm after 6 months (P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the low-intensity laser as adjuvant therapy after third molar extraction was more effective in the group undergoing the 10-J/cm² laser protocol for improving periodontal tissue healing and in both laser therapy groups for reducing facial edema.

[Control of pain in the early post-traumatic period in the outpatient practice. Results of the multi-center observational study RAPTOR (Rational Analgesia PostTraumatic: an Observational Research)]

AIM

Evaluate the frequency, nature and course of PTP, as well as the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in PTP in real clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The assessment of the condition and need for NSAIDs (original meloxicam) in 1115 outpatient patients who suffered a fracture of the radius (32.2%), injury to the knee (35.2%) or ligaments of the ankle (32.6%); women/men 51.5 and 48.5%, average age 46.915.5 years. We evaluated the dynamics of pain intensity (on a numerical rating scale NRS 010) at rest and during movement, the preservation of moderate and severe pain, as well as the development of adverse drugs reactions (ADR) to NSAIDs 48 weeks after injury.

RESULTS

The average intensity of pain during movement decreased from 7.031.66 to 2.211.38 (p0.001), at rest from 4.462.07 to 0.710.989 (p0.001). The number of people with pain severity 4 in the NRS in 48 weeks after the radius fracture, injury of the knee and ligaments of ankle was 21.0, 16.9 and 11.9%, with moderate or severe impairment of the injured limb 40.4, 26.2 and 16.3%, respectively. The need for taking NSAIDs up to 7 days was noted in 43.3%, 714 days-in 41.8%, more than 2 weeks or constantly in 14.9% of patients. Weak or moderate ADR were observed in 20.8% of patients, mainly dyspepsia and hypertension. Discontinuation of NSAIDs due to ADR was required in only 2.6% of patients. Pain retention 4 in NRS was associated with initially expressed pain (7 in NRS) OR 2.75 (95% CI 0.834.13; p0.001) and the presence of osteoarthritis of knee and/or hip OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.032.34; p=0.039).

CONCLUSION

PTP decreases rapidly in most patients after a radius fracture, injury of the knee, and ankle ligament injury while taking the original meloxicam. However, in a significant part of patients, moderate or severe PTP persists after 48 weeks, which requires prolonged analgesic therapy and active rehabilitation.

Comparison of analgesic effect, knee joint function recovery, and safety profiles between pre-operative and post-operative administrations of meloxicam in knee osteoarthritis patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pre-operative and post-operative meloxicam administration regarding post-operative pain control and knee joint function recovery in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Totally, 196 KOA patients who underwent TKA were consecutively enrolled and randomly assigned into pre-operative (N = 98) and post-operative administration group (N = 98) as 1:1 ratio. Pre-operative administration group received meloxicam 15 mg at 24 h pre-operation and 7.5 mg at 4 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h post-operation, respectively. Post-operative administration group received meloxicam 15 mg at 4 h post-operation and 7.5 mg at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h post-operation, respectively. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and at flexion, patient's global assessment (PGA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption, hospital for special surgery (HSS), knee score, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

Pre-operative meloxicam administration attenuated pain VAS score at rest at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h; and pain VAS score at flexion at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h; as well as PGA score at 6 h, 12 h, 48 h post-TKA compared with post-operative meloxicam administration. Additional and total consumption of PCA were both decreased in pre-operative meloxicam administration group than post-operative meloxicam administration group, while HSS knee score at 3 months post-TKA was similar between pre-operative and post-operative meloxicam administration groups. Regarding safety, the incidence of adverse events was of no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Pre-operative administration of meloxicam might assist the post-operative pain management and care in KOA patients who underwent TKA.

Early preoperative versus postoperative administration of meloxicam in pain control, patient global status improvement, knee function recovery of arthroscopic knee surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety between early preoperative administration and postoperative administration of oral meloxicam in patients underwent arthroscopic knee surgery (AKS).

METHODS

Totally 296 patients with the intention to undergo AKS were recruited and randomly allocated as 1:1 ratio into early preoperative analgesia (EPA) group and postoperative analgesia (POA) group. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) score and severity (at rest and at flexion), patient global assessment (PGA) score, the consumption of rescue analgesia (pethidine), and adverse events were evaluated during the perioperation. And knee range of motion (ROM), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and Lysholm score were assessed at baseline and at 3 months after AKS.

RESULTS

Both pain VAS score and severity (at rest and at flexion) were decreased at 4, 8, and 12 hours, but similar at -24, -2, 24, 36, and 48 hours after AKS in EPA group compared with POA group. Besides, PGA score was lower at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours, but similar at -24, -2, 36, and 48 hours after AKS in EPA group compared with POA group. As to the consumption of pethidine in perioperative period, it was decreased in EPA group compared with POA group. No difference was observed in knee ROM, IKDC score, Lysholm score, and adverse effects between EPA group and POA group.

CONCLUSION

Early preoperative administration of meloxicam was a superior approach in pain control compared with postoperative administration in treating patients underwent AKS.

Efficacy of Ketoprofen With or Without Omeprazole for Pain And Inflammation Control After Third Molar Removal

In view of the gastrointestinal problems generated by the ketoprofen use, the ketoprofen association with omeprazole is available on the market. However, this association efficacy in acute pain control has not been established. Bilateral extraction of lower third molars in similar positions is currently the most used model for the evaluation and investigation of the efficacy and pharmacological effects of new compounds for the treatment of acute postoperative pain. The randomized and crossover study consisted in evaluating the clinical efficacy of therapy performed by ketoprofen 100 mg (twice daily-b.i.d.) versus ketoprofen 200 mg + omeprazole 20 mg (once daily-q.d.) to pain, swelling and trismus control in the bilateral extraction model of lower third molars in similar positions in two different appointments, in 50 volunteers. Volunteers reported significantly less postoperative pain at various post-operative periods and consumed less rescue analgesic medication (acetaminophen 750 mg) throughout the study when they took the combination of ketoprofen 200 mg + omeprazole 20 mg (q.d.). Following administration of both study drugs, no gastrointestinal adverse reactions were reported by volunteers. Furthermore, the evaluations of the drugs in pain control by the volunteers were significantly favorable to ketoprofen 200 mg + omeprazole 20 mg (q.d.). For swelling and trismus control, the treatments presented similar results. In conclusion, when volunteers took ketoprofen 200 mg + omeprazole 20 mg (q.d.), they reported significantly less postoperative pain at various post-surgical periods and consumed less rescue analgesic medication throughout the study compared with ketoprofen 100 mg (b.i.d).

Meloxicam in the management of post-operative pain: Narrative review

Oral formulations of meloxicam, a preferential cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, have long been used to treat osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, as well as various pain syndromes of skeletomuscular origin (e.g., low back pain). However, these preparations are rarely indicated for the treatment of acute pain due to a poor dissolution rate and consequently a slow onset of action. The recent introduction of an intravenous (IV) NanoCrystal Colloidal Dispersion formulation opens up the possibility of using this drug during the perioperative period. The present review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of meloxicam, including its pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and tolerability. In addition, we critically examined a number of recently completed clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of meloxicam IV in the treatment of post-operative pain. Literature retrieval was performed through PubMed and Medline (through March 2018) using combinations of the terms meloxicam, acute pain, and pharmacology. In addition, bibliographical information, including contributory unpublished data, was requested from the company developing the drug. Clinical trials suggest that single IV doses of 30 mg meloxicam significantly reduce post-operative pain as well as opioid requirements. We conclude that meloxicam IV is an effective and well-tolerated analgesic agent for the management of moderate to severe post-operative pain.

Efficacy of piroxicam for postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery associated with CYP2C8*3 and CYP2C9

Objective

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYPs), predominantly CYP2C8 and CYP2C9. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible association of polymorphisms in the CYP2C8*3 and CYP2C9 genes with the clinical efficacy of oral piroxicam (20 mg daily for 4 days) after lower third molar surgeries with regard to postoperative pain, swelling, trismus, adverse reactions, need for rescue medication and the volunteer’s overall satisfaction.

Materials and methods

For this purpose, 102 volunteers were genotyped for CYP2C8*3 and CYP2C9 polymorphisms. Briefly, genomic DNA was isolated from saliva collected from volunteers subjected to invasive lower third molar surgeries, and the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were collected and analyzed.

Results

An equal amount of piroxicam sufficiently managed postoperative pain and inflammatory symptoms, with visual analog pain scores typically <40 mm for all genotypes investigated. Furthermore, only two out of 102 volunteers heterozygous for CYP2C8*3 and CYP2C9*3 reported adverse side effects.

Conclusion

In general, slow metabolizers of piroxicam, who were volunteers with mutant alleles, were indifferent from normal metabolizers with the wild-type alleles and therefore did not require specialized piroxicam doses to manage postoperative pain and inflammation.

Efficacy of naproxen with or without esomeprazole for pain and inflammation in patients after bilateral third molar extractions: A double blinded crossover study

Background

Using a double-blinded randomized crossover design, this study aimed to evaluate acute postoperative pain management, swelling and trismus in 46 volunteers undergoing extractions of the two lower third molars, in similar positions, at two different appointments who consumed a tablet of either NE (naproxen 500 mg + esomepraz ole 20 mg) or only naproxen (500 mg) every 12 hours for 4 days.

Material and Methods

Parameters were analyzed: self-reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS) pre- and postoperative mouth opening; incidence, type and severity of adverse reactions; total quantity consumed of rescue medication; and pre- and postoperative swelling.

Results

Female volunteers reported significantly more postoperative pain at 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and 4hrs after surgery while also taking their first rescue medication at a time significantly earlier when consuming NE when compared to naproxen (3.7hrs and 6.7hrs). Conversely, no differences were found between each drug group in males.

Conclusions

In conclusion, throughout the entire study, pain was mild after using either drug in both men and women with pain scores on average well below 40mm (VAS), although in women naproxen improved acute postoperative pain management when compared to NE.

Key words:Oral surgery, third molar, pain, naproxen, esomeprazole, NSAIDs.

Single dose of diclofenac or meloxicam for control of pain, facial swelling, and trismus in oral surgery

Background

Postoperative pain associated with removal of mandibular third molars has been documented from moderate to severe during the first 24 hours after surgery, with pain peaking between 6 and 8 hours when a conventional local anesthetic is used. Dental pain is largely inflammatory, and evidence-based medicine has shown that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the best analgesics for dental pain. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic, anti-inflammatory and anti-trismus effect of a single dose of diclofenac and meloxicam after mandibular third molar extraction.

Material and Methods

A total of 36 patients were randomized into two treatment groups, each with 18 patients, using a series of random numbers: Group A, was administered 100 mg of diclofenac; and Group B, 15 mg of meloxicam. Drugs were administered orally 1 hour prior to surgery. We evaluated pain intensity, analgesic consumption, swelling, as well as trismus.

Results

The results of this study showed that patients receiving 15 mg of meloxicam had less postoperative pain (P=0.04) and better aperture than those receiving 100 mg of diclofenac (P=0.03). The meloxicam group presented less swelling than diclofenac group; however, significant statistical differences were not observed.

Conclusions

Data of this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial demonstrated that patients receiving 15 mg of preoperative meloxicam had a better postoperative analgesia and anti-trismus effect compared with who were given 100 mg of diclofenac after third molar extractions.

Key words:Diclofenac, meloxicam, dental pain, trismus, third molar surgery.

Comparison of the effects of preemptive acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam on pain after separator placement: a randomized clinical trial

Background

This study aims to evaluate and compare the effect of pre-procedural administration of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam in reducing pain after separator placement.

Methods

Three hundred twenty-one patients who needed orthodontic treatment and aged above 15 were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: group A: 650 mg acetaminophen, group B: 400 mg ibuprofen, and group C: 7.5 mg meloxicam. All subjects received a single dose of medication 1 h prior to separator placement. Using visual analog scale, patients recorded their pain perception during rest, fitting posterior teeth together, and chewing at time intervals of immediately, 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after separator placement.

Results

There was no significant difference between acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam in post-separator placement pain control when administered 1 h before the procedure. In all the groups, at rest, pain level elevated after separator placement and reached its peak at 24 h and then subsided until 48 h. But during chewing and fitting of the posterior teeth, some of the groups reached a peak in pain at 48 h. No significant difference was found in pain experience between males and females.

Conclusions

Meloxicam can be used as an effective analgesic in orthodontic pain control considering it has less gastric side effects compared to the conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT2015041821828N1

Evolution of Postoperative Edema in Alveolar Graft Performed with Bone Morphogenetic Protein (rhBMP-2)

Objective

To evaluate the evolution of facial edema in the postoperative period after alveolar graft surgeries performed with collagen membrane soaked with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in individuals with cleft lip and palate.

Design

Longitudinal prospective.

Setting

Tertiary craniofacial center.

Participants

One hundred fifty individuals submitted to alveolar graft.

Interventions

In the preoperative consultation and 4 days after surgery, the individuals were assessed as to age, professional performing the surgery, duration of the procedure, type of cleft, measurement of facial edema, mouth opening, and global evaluation of the postoperative period.

Main Outcome Measures

Statistical analysis was performed to compare the facial edema and different variables, at a significance level of .05.

Results

The maximum facial edema occurred between 3 and 4 days postoperatively, was inversely proportional to age and mouth opening, greater for female patients compared with male patients, for incomplete unilateral cleft lip and palate compared with other types of clefts, and for surgeon 1 compared with the other surgeons at some moment postoperatively. The surgeries were longer for complete unilateral and bilateral clefts. The difference was statistically significant for these variables.

Conclusions

The facial edema was influenced by the rhBMP-2 used in alveolar graft, and trismus was proportional to the intensity of facial edema.

Sublingual ketorolac and sublingual piroxicam are equally effective for postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling management in lower third molar removal

OBJECTIVE

Lower third molar removal provides a clinical model for studying analgesic drugs. The present study's aim was to compare the clinical efficacy of sublingual ketorolac and sublingual piroxicam in managing pain, trismus and swelling after lower third molar extraction in adult volunteers.

STUDY DESIGN

In this double-blinded, randomized, crossover investigation, 47 volunteers received for 4 days ketorolac sublingually (10 mg 4 times daily) and piroxicam sublingually (20 mg once daily) during 2 separate appointments after lower third molar extraction of symmetrically positioned lower third molars. A surgeon evaluated objective parameters (surgery duration, mouth opening, rescue analgesic medication, and facial swelling) and volunteers documented subjective parameters (postoperative pain and global evaluation), comparing postoperative results for a total of 7 days after surgery. The means of the objective and subjective parameters were compared for statistical significance (P < .05).

RESULTS

Volunteers reported low pain scores during the postoperative period when treated with either sublingual ketorolac or piroxicam. Also, volunteers ingested similar amounts of analgesic rescue medication (paracetamol) when they received either drug sublingually (P > .05). Additionally, values for mouth openings measured just before surgery and immediately after suture removal 7 days later were similar among volunteers (P > .05), and the type of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) used in this study showed no significant differences between swellings on the second or seventh days after surgery (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain, trismus, and swelling after lower third molar extraction, independent of surgical difficulty, were successfully controlled by sublingual ketorolac (10 mg 4 times daily) or sublingual piroxicam (20 mg once daily), and no significant differences were observed between the NSAIDs evaluated.

Pre-emptive analgesic effectiveness of meloxicam versus tramadol after mandibular third molar surgery: a pilot study

PURPOSE

To compare the pre-emptive analgesic effectiveness of 15 mg of meloxicam and 50 mg of tramadol after mandibular third molar surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This pilot study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. The patients were randomized into 2 treatment groups, each with 15 patients, by use of a series of random numbers: group A was administered 15 mg of meloxicam intramuscularly (IM) 50 minutes before the surgery and group B was given 50 mg of tramadol IM 50 minutes before the surgery. We evaluated pain intensity, analgesic consumption, swelling, and trismus.

RESULTS

The group receiving 15 mg of meloxicam IM showed differences in pain intensity evaluated by the area under the curve of the visual analog scale and total analgesic consumption when compared with the group receiving 50 mg of tramadol IM.

CONCLUSION

The patients receiving 15 mg of preoperative meloxicam had less pain intensity and total analgesic consumption than those receiving 50 mg of preoperative tramadol.

Randomized double blind comparative study on the efficacy of Ibuprofen and aceclofenac in controlling post-operative sequelae after third molar surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Ibuprofen and Aceclofenac in controlling pain, swelling and trismus following removal of impacted mandibular third molar teeth. To assess the patient's acceptability of these drugs.

METHODS

The present double blind study was conducted on 60 adult patients for the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Drugs administered were Ibuprofen and Aceclofenac. Both the drugs were packed separately and coded with equal in number. After removal of impacted mandibular third molars, following parameters were studied: (1) Analgesic activity, (2) Maximum mouth opening, (3) Swelling.

RESULTS

The scores were recorded preoperatively and on 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th postoperative day.

CONCLUSION

Ibuprofen has a marginal edge over Aceclofenac. Both the drugs were well accepted by the patients with no reported adverse effects.

Comparison of oral versus sublingual piroxicam during postoperative pain management after lower third molar extraction

In this study, 53 patients received piroxicam, administered orally or sublingually, after undergoing removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, during two separate appointments. This study used a randomized, blind, cross-over protocol. Objective and subjective parameters were recorded for comparison of postoperative results for 7 days after surgery. Patients treated with oral or sublingual piroxicam reported low postoperative pain scores. The patients who received piroxicam orally took a similar average amount of analgesic rescue medication compared with patients who received piroxicam sublingually (p>0.05). Patients exhibited similar values for mouth opening measured just before surgery and immediately following suture removal 7 days later (p>0.05), and showed no significant differences between routes of piroxicam administration for swelling control during the second or seventh postoperative days (p>0.05). In summary, pain, trismus and swelling after lower third molar extraction, independent of surgical difficulty, could be controlled by piroxicam 20mg administered orally or sublingually and no significant differences were observed between the route of delivery used in this study.

Efficacy of nimesulide versus meloxicam in the control of pain, swelling and trismus following extraction of impacted lower third molar

This study compared the efficacy of nimesulide and meloxicam in the control of pain, swelling and trismus, following the extraction of impacted inferior third molars. Twenty patients with two impacted inferior third molars, in similar positions, were selected. The patients were designated randomly to the meloxicam group (MEL: 7.5mg twice a day for 5 days) or the nimesulide group (NIM: 100mg for 5 days). Following the extractions, swelling was more pronounced in the MEL group than in the NIM group (P<or=0.001). There were no significant differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups (P>0.05). At the 72-h evaluation, reduction was significantly larger in mouth opening in the MEL group compared with the NIM group (P<0.05). In conclusion, pain control was similar in both treatment groups. NIM was more effective than MEL in the control of swelling and trismus following the extraction of impacted lower third molars.

Single dose oral meloxicam for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 15 mg daily, but lower doses of 7.5 mg are advised in older patients. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (June 2009); EMBASE (June 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral meloxicam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral meloxicam in patients with established postoperative pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (A200) and 0.5% bupivacaine (B200), both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal.

STUDY DESIGN

Fifty patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia either with A200 or B200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossover manner. Time to onset, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference between the time to onset of A200 (1.66 +/- 0.13 minutes) and B200 (2.51 +/- 0.21 minutes) was found (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of analgesia, whether the patient was subjected to osteotomy or not, regardless of the local anesthetic used (3 to 4 hours; P > .05). However, when patients received B200 they experienced a statistically significant longer period of anesthesia on the soft tissues as compared with when they had received A200 (around 5 hours and 4 hours, respectively, P < .05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal for both anesthetics. In the surgeries with osteotomy, the comparison between A200 and B200 showed statistically significant differences in the diastolic (64 mm Hg and 68 mm Hg, respectively, P = .001) and mean arterial pressure (86 mm Hg and 89 mm Hg, respectively, P = .031) when data from all the surgical phases were pooled. Additionally, the mouth opening at the suture removal was statistically different for A200 and B200 solutions (91.90% +/- 3.00% and 88.57% +/- 2.38% of the preoperative measure, respectively) when surgeries required bone removal (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine, 4% articaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) provided a shorter time to onset and comparable hemostasis and postoperative pain control with a shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia in lower third molar removal.

The selective and non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors valdecoxib and piroxicam induce the same postoperative analgesia and control of trismus and swelling after lower third molar removal

We compared the clinical efficacy of orally administered valdecoxib and piroxicam for the prevention of pain, trismus and swelling after removal of horizontally and totally intrabony impacted lower third molars. Twenty-five patients were scheduled to undergo removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars in two separate appointments. Valdecoxib (40 mg) or piroxicam (20 mg) was administered in a double-blind, randomized and crossed manner for 4 days after the surgical procedures. Objective and subjective parameters were recorded for comparison of postoperative courses. Both agents were effective for postoperative pain relief (N = 19). There was a similar mouth opening at suture removal compared with the preoperative values (86.14 +/- 4.36 and 93.12 +/- 3.70% of the initial measure for valdecoxib and piroxicam, respectively; ANOVA). There was no significant difference regarding the total amount of rescue medication taken by the patients treated with valdecoxib or piroxicam (173.08 +/- 91.21 and 461.54 +/- 199.85 mg, respectively; Wilcoxon test). There were no significant differences concerning the swelling observed on the second postoperative day compared to baseline measures (6.15 +/- 1.84 and 8.46 +/- 2.04 mm for valdecoxib and piroxicam, respectively; ANOVA) or on the seventh postoperative day (1.69 +/- 1.61 and 2.23 +/- 2.09 mm for valdecoxib and piroxicam, respectively; ANOVA). The cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor valdecoxib is as effective as the non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor piroxicam for pain, trismus and swelling control after removal of horizontally and totally intrabony impacted lower third molars.