Efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs in third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial

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.

NSAID chronotherapy after impacted third molar extraction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pain management impacts patients' quality of life and morbidity. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen are widely used for this following a 3-doses-per-day regime. However, pain and inflammation follow a circadian rhythm, and animal models assessing the scheduling of NSAID administration (e.g., chronotherapy) have shown that while their use during the active phase of the day enhances postoperative recovery, their administration during the resting phase could have detrimental effects. This observation has led us to hypothesize that night administration of NSAID might be unnecessary in post-surgical scenarios. Therefore, a randomized clinical trial was conducted to test this hypothesis in surgical third molar extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy (18-35 years) healthy participants requiring surgical removal of impacted lower third molars were recruited and randomized into a double-blind placebo-controlled study. For three days postoperatively, the treatment group (n = 33) received ibuprofen (400 mg) at 8 AM, 1 PM, and a placebo at 8 PM, while the control group (n = 37) received ibuprofen (400 mg) at 8 AM, 1 PM, and 8 PM. Pain severity was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) and healing indicators including facial swelling, mouth opening, and C-reactive protein blood levels were also measured.

RESULTS

Pain VAS measures showed a circadian variation peaking at night. Also, no significant differences were observed between the two groups of the study in terms of postoperative pain scores (estimate: 0.50, 95% CI = [- 0.38, 1.39]) or any other healing indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative pain follows a circadian rhythm. Moreover, night administration of ibuprofen might not provide any significant benefits in terms of pain management and control of inflammation, and two doses during the day only could be sufficient for pain management after surgical interventions.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Even though this study cannot rule out the possibility that a reduced regime is different than a standard regime, nocturnal doses of ibuprofen seem to have no clinical significance in the short term, and the results of this study provide evidence in favor of reducing ibuprofen administration from three doses to two doses only after third molar surgery.

Single-Dose Ibuprofen-Arginine as a Preventive for Pain, Edema, and Trismus After Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Objective  We examined if the association of ibuprofen with arginine has a better anti-inflammatory effect on pain, edema, and trismus after surgery of the impacted mandibular third molar than ibuprofen alone.

Materials and Methods  The study included 21 patients, 18 to 30 years of age, each with an impacted, and bilateral and symmetric third molar (total n  = 21) that required transalveolar extraction. Patients were randomly assigned numbers from 1 to 21. Group A received ibuprofen-arginine as preoperative medication, while Group B received only ibuprofen. Both groups received the same postoperative medications: amoxicillin + acetaminophen. All patients were evaluated for pain at 6, 12, and 24 hours. They were evaluated for edema and trismus before surgery; immediately after surgery; and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. Postoperative pain scores used the visual analog scale (BS-11). For facial edema and trismus, linear measurements used the method modified by Gabka and Matsumura.

Statistical Analysis  For the evaluation of data between Group A and Group B, we used the statistical software SPSS version 22. The Shapiro-Wilk, analysis of variance, the Bonferroni comparisons, and the Wilcoxon test were used. All tests were based on a significance level of 0.05.

Results  The study results reveal that the facial edema scores of Group A and Group B presented statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05), while for postoperative trismus, there was no statistically significant difference ( p  > 0.05) between the scores of Group A and Group B.

Conclusion  As a conclusion, we can state that the use of ibuprofen-arginine allows for significantly better control of pain and edema, and shows a tendency toward better recovery from trismus, although without statistical significance. Based on this, we can assert that arginine improves the anti-inflammatory power of ibuprofen, thus generating better tissue healing after surgery of the impacted third molar.

Review of dexamethasone administration for management of complications in postoperative third molar surgery

Dexamethasone has been used in oral and maxillofacial surgery for postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar surgeries. It is a potent and powerful drug that can alleviate the aforementioned postoperative sequelae. Dexamethasone is responsible for inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators in the inflammation process to improve patient quality of life after surgical intervention. There are several available routes of administering dexamethasone. This article will help determine the suggested routes of administration, dosage, parameters, and dexamethasone timing for third molar surgeries.

Is Dexamethasone superior to Ketorolac in reducing pain, swelling and trismus following mandibular third molar removal? A split mouth triple-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

The preemptive use of anti-inflammatory drugs, such as corticosteroids and NSAIDs, has the potential to reduce pain, swelling and trismus following oral surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone and ketorolac tromethamine in reducing pain, swelling and trismus after mandibular third molar removal.

Material and Methods

The researches implemented a triple-blind, randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted with ASA I individuals aging between 18 and 35 years, which were randomized and submitted to two interventions, one with 8mg dexamethasone and the other with 20mg ketorolac tromethamine given 1h before the procedure. The primary predictor variable was the use of dexamethasone or ketorolac. The primary outcome variable was the postoperative pain level, measured with a Visual Analogue Scale. The secondary outcome variables were the amount of rescue analgesic consumed, swelling and trismus. Repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test for paired samples were used to compare the means. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Fifty individuals were randomized and allocated to intervention, and the sample was composed of 40 subjects who completed the study (27 female and 13 male). Dexamethasone, when compared to ketorolac tromethamine, showed a significantly higher reduction in pain level at 8h, 16h, 24h, 32h, 40h and 72h, in swelling and trismus at 24h, 48h, 72h and 7 days and in total number of rescue analgesics taken up to 72h postoperative (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The clinical performance of dexamethasone in controlling pain, swelling and trismus after mandibular third molar removal was superior to ketorolac tromethamine’s.

Key words:Third Molar, anti-inflammatory agents, dexamethasone, ketorolac.

The efficacy of etodolac and ibuprofen, regarding gender, on pain, edema and trismus after impacted lower third molar surgery: A randomized prospective clinical split-mouth study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to conduct a randomized prospective study about the efficacy of etodolac and ibuprofen on trismus, pain and edema regarding gender of patients submitted to impacted lower third molar teeth extraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty patients aging between 16 and 35 year-old were submitted to the exodontia of impacted lower third molars. During the postoperative period, patients received nine ibuprofen (600 mg) or etodolac (300 mg) pills via oral administration immediately after surgery and repeated doses every eight hours during three days. Patients were evaluated regarding pain, trismus and edema.

RESULTS

Sixteen men and fourteen women participated of the study. No statistical difference was established regarding gender according to the evaluated parameters. However, etodolac use showed better results regarding pain, trismus and edema.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain, edema and trismus after impacted third molars extraction were not influenced by gender.

Effects of ibuprofen administration timing on oral surgery pain: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of ibuprofen 400 mg given 30 min before or immediately after third molars surgery under local anaesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The single-centre, randomized, split-mouth, triple-blind, clinical trial involved 38 outpatients, for a total of 76 bilateral symmetrical fully bone impacted mandibular third molars. Each patient was undergone to separate surgical sessions for the right and left side, and ibuprofen was randomly administered 30 min before or immediately after the intervention. Study participants recorded pain intensity using Numerical Rating Scale-11, the timing of rescue therapy intake and overall tablets consumption over 3 days.

RESULTS

The overall pain intensity score was lower in the group receiving ibuprofen immediately after (3.13 ± 2.46) than before (3.58 ± 2.40) surgery, with statistically significant differences only on the second and third days. The mean time to the first using rescue therapy was longer in the postoperative (598.33 ± 422.62 min) than in the preoperative (406.25 ± 149.79 min) analgesic treatment group (p = .123). The number of supplemented ibuprofen tablets did not differ (p = .530) between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present study, ibuprofen administration immediately after surgery seemed to be more effective than preoperative administration.

Do corticosteroids reduce postoperative pain following third molar intervention?

Background

Corticosteroids have been widely used by oral surgeons for reducing swelling caused by wisdom teeth surgery. However, they have not been proven to decrease pain. This study was aimed at analyzing previous studies pertaining to corticosteroids and pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery.

Methods

The Science Direct, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant journals according to a systematic search strategy (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study). Randomized controlled trials published in English from 1998 to 2017 were extracted.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were included, with a total of 36 comparative cases. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone were the most commonly used corticosteroids. Intramuscular injections of corticosteroids were optimal for pain reduction, regardless of the time of administration.

Conclusions

Corticosteroids can be used as an adjuvant for pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone delivered via the intramuscular route is the best method for effective pain reduction. The ideal time for administration of corticosteroids is the preoperative period.

Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Background

Complications following impacted third molar surgery significantly affect patients' quality of life during the immediate postoperative period. This study aimed to achieve the proper anesthesia method by comparing the effect of the application of lidocaine alone with the application of lidocaine and articaine simultaneously in reducing the complications during and following impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods

The study design was a split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted on 13 patients (26 samples) referred for elective surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar with similar difficulty on both sides. Each patient underwent similar surgical procedures on two separate appointments. Each patient randomly received 2% lidocaine for conventional inferior alveolar nerve block and 4% articaine for local infiltration before the surgery on one side (group A) and 2% lidocaine alone (for both block anesthesia and infiltration) before the surgery on the other side (group B). Intraoperative and postoperative variables for both groups were established and statistically analyzed.

Results

The findings showed that pain on the first day after surgery in group A was significantly lower than that in group B. The patients in group A mentioned experiencing less discomfort following the surgery. The increased horizontal swelling on the first and third days following surgery and oblique swelling on the seventh day in patients in group B were statistically significant.

Conclusion

Choosing an appropriate anesthetic drug for oral surgery, specifically impacted third molar surgery, is dependent on the clinician's opinion, however; it seems that the combination of lidocaine and articaine may control the patient's pain significantly better than lidocaine alone.

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.

Comparison of Effectiveness of Etoricoxib and Diclofenac on Pain and Perioperative Sequelae After Surgical Avulsion of Mandibular Third Molars: A Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of etoricoxib and diclofenac in the management of perioperative sequelae following impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-seven patients who needed surgical avulsion of an impacted mandibular third molar were chosen for the study. All patients were randomly allocated to receive one of the following treatments, twice a day for 5 days after surgery: placebo (n=33), diclofenac (n=32), or etoricoxib (n=32). The primary outcome evaluated was postoperative pain, recorded by each patient and evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale score. The secondary outcomes chosen were, compared with preoperative ones, changes in postoperative swelling and maximum mouth opening.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, treatment with etoricoxib and diclofenac demonstrated an enhancement in the primary outcome. Furthermore, when compared with the other groups, patients who had undergone etoricoxib presented a significant median reduction in postoperative pain at 2 hours (P<0.001), 12 hours (P=0.025), and at 48 hours (P=0.018) after surgery. Moreover, the linear regression analysis showed that diclofenac and etoricoxib determined a significant influence on Visual Analogue Scale at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48 hours and at 10 days after surgery. There were no differences in swelling and maximum mouth opening values between groups.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that both treatments were effective. However, treatment with etoricoxib showed a greater reduction in the incidence and severity of postoperative pain following third molar surgery compared with diclofenac and placebo.

Evaluation of the efficacy of celecoxib and ibuprofen on postoperative pain, swelling, and mouth opening after surgical removal of impacted third molars: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of celecoxib and ibuprofen in reducing postoperative sequelae following the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Ninety-eight subjects who needed surgical extraction of an impacted mandibular third molar were selected for the study. All subjects were randomly allocated to receive one of the following treatments twice a day for 5days after surgery: placebo (n=32), ibuprofen (n=33), or celecoxib (n=33). The primary outcome chosen was postoperative pain, which was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score recorded by each patient. The secondary outcomes chosen were changes in postoperative swelling and maximum mouth opening values compared to preoperative ones. Compared to placebo, treatment with celecoxib and ibuprofen resulted in improvements in the primary outcome. Furthermore, when compared to the other groups, patients in the celecoxib group showed a significant reduction in postoperative pain scores at 6h (P<0.001), 12h (P=0.011), and 24h (P=0.041) after surgery. Regarding swelling and maximum mouth opening values, there were no significant differences between the groups at each follow-up session. This study demonstrated that treatment with celecoxib decreased the incidence and severity of postoperative pain following third molar surgery compared to ibuprofen and placebo.

Anesthetic efficacies of intrapapillary injection in comparison to inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular premolar extraction: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Intrapapillary injection (IPI) has been suggested to improve pulpal anesthesia of mandibular teeth and to avoid complications from inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study aimed to determine and compare clinical efficacies and prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) levels between IPI and IANB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IANB was randomly selected for mandibular premolar anesthesia on one side of 40 patients, whereas IPI was locally administered to the contralateral premolar. Pulpal anesthesia, pain during injection and extraction, patients' satisfaction, and complications were assessed from 30 patients. Gingival crevicular fluid from ten patients was collected for PGE₂ quantification by ELISA.

RESULTS

Of 30 patients, 18 preferred IPI after injection due to significantly faster mean onset of pulpal anesthesia (p < 0.001) and lower mean score of injection pain (p = 0.017) than IANB, but 21 preferred IANB instead after extraction due to less postoperative pain, consistent with the significantly lower median PGE₂ level on the IANB side than that on the IPI at 30 min (p = 0.047). However, there was no difference in the mean satisfaction score between the two techniques. Ulcerated epithelium and sloughing tissues were found at the IPI site in some patients with complete healing within 2 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The anesthetic efficacies of IPI for mandibular premolar extraction are comparable to those of IANB. However, postoperative pain and local complications at the IPI site should be considered.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

IPI may be used for dental procedures that require only a short anesthetic duration to avoid failure of pulpal anesthesia, complications, and discomfort from IANB.

Evaluation of the impact of preoperative use of dexamethasone and cyclobenzaprine in surgical extraction of lower third molars on trismus by electromyographic analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cyclobenzaprine and dexamethasone on ​the electrical activity of the masticatory muscles in patients who had undergone lower third molar surgery.

METHODS

Thirty bilateral impacted lower third molars with indication of extraction were randomised into three groups: the control group, the dexamethasone, and the cyclobenzaprine group. To obtain muscular electrical activity and mouth opening, an electromyographic device was used at mandibular rest and maximum voluntary contraction and compared pre- and post-operatively.

RESULTS

During muscle contraction, no significant difference was observed in the electromyographic records on the non-operated side. On the operated side, there was a reduction in electrical activity for both drugs pre-operatively and immediately post-operatively compared to the control group. All pharmacological agents promoted a higher mouth opening compared to control group.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that dexamethasone and cyclobenzaprine may be useful as an adjuvant in the prevention of motor dysfunctions in third molar surgery.

Analysis of the Effectiveness of Lornoxicam and Flurbiprofen on Management of Pain and Sequelae Following Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of Lornoxicam and Flurbiprofen in reducing perioperative sequelae after impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Ninety-one patients who needed surgical extraction of an impacted mandibular third molar were selected for the study. All subjects were randomly allocated to receive one of the following treatments twice a day for 5 days after surgery: placebo (n = 29), Flurbiprofen (n = 31), or Lornoxicam (n = 31). The primary outcome was postoperative pain, evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 30 min, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48 h, 7 and 10 days following surgery. The secondary outcomes chosen were changes in postoperative swelling and maximum mouth opening values compared to preoperative ones. Compared to placebo, treatment with Flurbiprofen and Lornoxicam was characterised by an improvement in the primary outcome. Moreover, the treatment with Lornoxicam presented significantly lower median pain scores at 2 h (p < 0.001) and at 6 h (p = 0.016) compared to Flurbiprofen and at 2 h (p < 0.001), 6 h (p = 0.01), and at 24 h (p = 0.018) after surgery compared with placebo. Swelling and maximum mouth opening values were not significantly different between the groups at each follow-up session. This trial demonstrated that treatment with Lornoxicam showed a decrease in the incidence and severity of pain in the first postoperative phase following third molar surgery compared to Flurbiprofen and placebo.

Preemptive and Postoperative Medication Protocols for Root Coverage Combined with Connective Tissue Graft

Abstract This trial evaluated the preemptive and postoperative effect of dexamethasone and ibuprofen on prevention of pain/discomfort, edema and interference in daily life in patients undergoing root coverage combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (CAF + CTG). Twenty patients were randomly assigned as follows: NSAID Group: 400mg Ibuprofen 60 min preemptive + 400mg Ibuprofen postoperative; or SAID Group: 4mg Dexamethasone 60 min preemptive + 4mg Dexamethasone postoperative. The postoperative medication was administered 8 and 16 h post-surgery. Each patient received questionnaires based on a numeric scale (101-point numeric scale rate [NRS-101]) and multiple choice questions (four-point verbal rating scale [VRS-4]) about trans-operative pain/discomfort, hourly for 8 h after surgery and once a day for three days. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for edema and interference in daily life during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th day was also answered. The degree of anxiety was rated statistically by the Chi-square test. The Mann-Whitney and Friedman tests were used for the other questionnaires. The surgery time and number of analgesic pills consumed were compared using Student’s t-test. Patients who used dexamethasone presented a trend toward less pain when compared to individuals who ingested ibuprofen, with a significant difference observed 3 h after the procedure (p<0.05). The use of dexamethasone also promoted less edema until the 2nd day and lower interference in daily life on the third day when compared with ibuprofen (p<0.05). We concluded that the use of dexamethasone as a preemptive and postoperative medication was more suitable as a drug therapeutic protocol for CAF + CTG.

Comparison of the anti-inflammatory effect of dexamethasone and ketorolac in the extractions of third molars

This double-blind, split-mouth, and randomized study was aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone and ketorolac tromethamine, through the evaluation of pain, edema, and limitation of mouth opening. Thirty-four individuals aged 18-26 years, having bilateral mandibular third molars, in a similar position, were selected. Two different surgical procedures were performed on the same individual by the single surgeon. For an extraction, the individual received 1 capsule of 10 mg ketorolac tromethamine 1 h before surgery and every 8 h for 2 days. For the extraction of the contralateral side, the individual received 1 capsule of 8 mg dexamethasone 1 h before surgery and 1 placebo capsule every 8 h for 2 days. Sodium metamizol, 500 mg, was given as rescue medication in postoperative. Pain was assessed by the Visual Box Scale-11 points (BS-11) at 24 h postoperative. Edema (metric measurement) and the maximum mouth opening (interincisal) were recorded in the pre-operative, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h and 7 days postoperatively. The results showed that both therapeutic treatments used were effective in the postoperative, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the pain and edema variables. However, for the limitation of mouth opening, 24 h and 7 days postoperatively, the dexamethasone group had a lower limitation of mouth opening, behaving better than the ketorolac for this variable in these periods. Due also to the higher margin of safety, the use of dexamethasone as a single dose becomes a more suitable alternative for use in routine surgical extractions of third molars.

Oral pregabalin for postoperative pain relief after third molar extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin administered pre- and postoperatively in patients with pain and swelling due to the surgical removal of impacted lower third molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The final study sample comprised 60 volunteers (23 males and 37 females). Group 1 (n = 30) received 75 mg oral pregabalin 1 h before surgery and 1 h after surgery. Group 2 (n = 30) served as a control group and received no pregabalin. Both groups were administered with 650 mg paracetamol every 8 h for 2 days. Postoperative pain intensity and swelling were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS); pain relief experienced was reported using a four-point verbal rating scale (VRS); the rescue medication requirement, adverse effects, and global impression of the medication were also recorded.

RESULTS

No significant difference in pain intensity (VAS) was observed between the groups. However, fewer rescue medication tablets were needed by pregabalin-treated patients than by controls (p = 0.021). The frequency and intensity of adverse effects were significantly higher in pregabalin-treated patients (p < 0.001), although no serious adverse events occurred. No significant difference in the degree of swelling was observed in any measurement except that from mandibular angle to lip junction, which showed lesser inflammation in the pregabalin group at 24 h post-surgery (p = 0.011). The global opinion on the medication received was more positive in the pregabalin group (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of pregabalin reduces the requirement for rescue medication after third molar surgery and results in a more constant pain level, with fewer peaks of pain intensity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that pregabalin may be useful to control acute postoperative pain. Adverse effects are known to be reduced at the low pregabalin dose used in our study.