Comparison of intraosseous and submucosal dexamethasone injection in mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Comparison of the effects of submucosal hyaluronidase and dexamethasone on postoperative edema, pain, trismus, and infection following impacted third molar surgery

BACKGROUND

Limiting postoperative edema, pain, trismus, and infection is crucial for smooth healing. This prospective, controlled clinical trial investigated and compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone and hyaluronidase in relieving these complications.

METHODS

In groups Ia and IIa, 8 mg of dexamethasone and 150 IU of hyaluronidase were administered following the removal of impacted teeth, respectively. The contralateral sides (groups Ib and IIb) were determined as control groups. Edema, pain, trismus, and infection were clinically evaluated on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days.

RESULTS

60 patients were enrolled in the study. Hyaluronidase provided significantly more edema relief than dexamethasone on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days (P = 0.031, 0.002, 0.000, and 0.009, respectively). No statistical difference was found between dexamethasone and hyaluronidase in VAS and rescue analgesic intake amount values for all time points. Hyaluronidase was more effective in reducing trismus than dexamethasone on the 2nd and 3rd postoperative days (P = 0.029, 0.024, respectively). Neither of the agents significantly increased the postoperative infection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyaluronidase can be selected when postoperative excessive edema and trismus are anticipated. Dexamethasone may be a cost-effective option if postoperative pain control is merely targeted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Clinical Trials Protocol Registration and Results System (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT05466604) on 20/07/2022.

A comparative evaluation of the effect of addition of 8 mg dexamethasone to 2% lignocaine with adrenaline in mandibular third molar surgery: a split mouth randomised double blind study

Background

Impacted lower third molar surgeries involve trauma in a highly vascularized zone with loose connective tissue leading to inflammatory sequelae including postoperative pain, swelling, trismus and generalised oral dysfunction during the post-operative phase. In minor oral surgical procedures, an all-inclusive method to protract anaesthesia and reduce the inevitable post-operative sequelae is yet to be explored substantially.

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone added to local anaesthetics in extending the depth and duration of anaesthesia and decreasing the postoperative complications after surgical removal of impacted third molars.

Methodology

A controlled, randomized, split-mouth, double-blind prospective study involving lower third molar surgery was performed in 35 patients wherein the test group (Group I) received 8 mg dexamethasone added to 2 ml of 2% lignocaine with epinephrine and the control group (Group II) received 2 ml of sterile water added to 2 ml of 2% lignocaine with epinephrine. Onset and duration of anaesthesia were evaluated; followed by evaluation of pain, swelling and trismus for 7 days post-surgery, using independent t-test and ANOVA for repeated measures.

Results

Test group had a faster onset of anaesthesia by 69 s and a lengthier duration of 128.4 min (p < 0.001). Pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale) in the first 24 h were 4.9 and 7.5 in the test and control group respectively (p < 0.001). The average dosing of analgesics until postoperative day 7 in the test and control group were 12.6 and 18.4 respectively (p < 0.001). The swelling was significantly lesser in the test group, in addition, trismus was significantly lesser by 1 cm on postoperative days 1 and 2 and 0.2 cm on day 7.

Conclusion

The addition of dexamethasone to lignocaine in the nerve block reduces the time of onset and significantly prolongs the duration of anaesthesia with decreased pain, swelling and trismus. Steroids mixed directly with the local anaesthetic agent can minimise the post-operative sequelae associated with third molar surgery with a single needle prick.

The Local Route of Administration of Dexamethasone in Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials and a Critical Narrative Review on the Claimed Advantages of the Local Route

Introduction

The proponents of local route of Dexamethasone (DXM) administration for impacted mandibular 3rd molar (MM3) surgeries claim advantages over the traditional systemic routes. This systematic review and meta-analysis were aimed to determine whether the route of perioperative administration of DXM influences the inflammatory outcomes of MM3 surgeries.

Methodology

An electronic database search over a 25 year period of randomised trials of DXM in MM3 surgeries was conducted. The mean differences or standardised mean differences were extracted and pooled using the fixed or random-effects model.

Results

Of the sixteen selected trials, four were considered for a meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the inflammatory outcomes between the local and systemic routes of DXM.

Conclusion

The claimed advantages of the local route of DXM do not appear to be scientifically valid. Clinical trials supported with DXM plasma measurements are needed to confirm the absence of a systemic effect when DXM is administered locally.

Is Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin Really Effective in Reducing Expected Side Effects of Removing Impacted Third Molar Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Common side effects of third molar (M3) operations including pain, edema, and trismus have an adverse effect on patient quality of life. Injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) may ameliorate some of the side effects of the operation.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this study is to measure and compare differences in pain, swelling, trismus, and quality of life between i-PRF side and a control side of subjects undergoing M3 removal.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND SAMPLE

This study is a single-center, split-mouth, randomized prospective clinical trial conducted at Ordu University Faculty of Dentistry. Patients who presented between March and August 2022 for the extraction of impacted third molars due to various reasons were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were local conditions and systematic comorbidities. Additionally, patients with differences that could cause bias between the sides were excluded from the study.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The predictor variable is treatment i-PRF or control.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

The outcome variables of interest are the pain level and analgesic consumption values on the Visual Analog Scale, the distance between determined reference points, maximum mouth opening, and the Postoperative Symptom Severity scale data. A Postoperative Symptom Severity scale was created using questions commonly employed in the clinical evaluation of patients following the extraction of third molars. This scale was further divided into subscales corresponding to the 7 primary adverse effects identified in a prior study.

COVARIATES

Covariate variables, sex, age, and operation times.

ANALYSES

The normality of the distribution of the study data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Depending on whether the data exhibited a normal distribution or not, the data were analyzed using either the paired t-test or the Wilcoxon test. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study included 35 patients with a mean age of 19.97 ± 2.07 years. The i-PRF side significant success in postoperative edema measurements. There was a statistically significant difference observed between the control side and the i-PRF side on the second day (control: 9.74 ± 0.57 mm, i-PRF: 9.46 ± 0.51 mm) and seventh day (control: 9.33 ± 0.59 mm, i-PRF: 9.12 ± 0.50 mm) in lateral canthus-angulus measurements (P: .01 and P: .04, respectively). Additionally, on the second day, there was a statistically significant difference in tragus-commisura measurements (control: 11.53 ± 0.62 mm, i-PRF: 11.31 ± 0.58 mm) with a P value of .02. There was no significant difference observed between the sides in terms of postoperative pain (P > .05). However, analgesic consumption in the i-PRF side was significantly lower at the sixth hour (control: 1.8 ± 0.58 dose, i-PRF: 1.14 ± 0.35 dose), 24th hour (control: 1.77 ± 0.54 dose, i-PRF: 1.14 ± 0.35 dose), and second day (control: 1.8 ± 0.47 dose, i-PRF: 1.4 ± 0.73 dose) postoperatively (P: .000, P: .000, and P: .012). Mouth opening was significantly lower in the i-PRF side on the second day (control: 27.88 ± 6.48 mm, i-PRF: 25.51 ± 5.56 mm) (P: .025). However, i-PRF had no significant effect on postoperative quality of life (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the study results, i-PRF had a limited effect on the management of postoperative pain, but i-PRF was effective in reducing postoperative edema. Further studies with larger patient sides are now needed to yield more detailed findings on the subject.

Does Betamethasone Injection Into the Pterygomandibular Space Affect the Postoperative Outcomes of Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Pain, swelling, and trismus are common outcomes following impacted lower third molar surgery.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of betamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space on the aforementioned sequelae of third molar surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND SAMPLE

A split-mouth, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 40 patients with symmetrical bilateral impacted lower third molars. The surgeries were performed at an outpatient clinic under local anesthesia.

PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

The predictor variable is the steroid treatment. The experimental group received a 1 mL (6 mg) betamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space, while the control group received a normal saline.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S)

The primary outcome variable was postoperative pain assessed using a visual analog scale. The secondary outcome variables were the number of analgesic tablets consumed, facial swelling, and trismus.

COVARIATES

The age and sex of the patients, the direction of impaction, and the duration of surgery were recorded.

ANALYSES

Comparisons between the groups were carried out using an unpaired t test. An analysis of variance test was used to assess intragroup differences. The significance was considered at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

Of the 265 patients initially screened for study enrollment, the final sample included 40 subjects, with a mean age of 28.3 years (±7.4), 28 (70%) were mal and 12 (30%) were female. There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning postoperative pain or the number of consumed analgesic tablets. However, the betamethasone group exhibited significantly reduced facial swelling and increased mouth opening. On the first postoperative day, the visual analog scale pain score did not significantly differ between the betamethasone group (6.0 ± 1.7) and the control group (6.8 ± 1.4), with a P value of 0.112. On the first postoperative day, facial swelling measured 4.2 ± 1.3 mm in the betamethasone group compared to 6.0 ± 0.9 mm in the control group (P < .001). Mouth opening in the betamethasone group was 30.8 ± 6.7 mm, while in the control group, it measured 21.9 ± 5.5 mm (P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Local betamethasone has no effect on pain after third molar surgery, but facial swelling and trismus are significantly reduced.

Three-dimensional facial swelling evaluation of pre-operative single-dose of prednisone in third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Facial swelling, pain, and trismus are the most common postoperative sequelae after mandibular third molar (M3M) surgery. Corticosteroids are the most used drugs to reduce the severity of inflammatory symptoms after M3M surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a single pre-operative dose of prednisone on pain, trismus, and swelling after M3M surgery.

METHODS

This study was designed as a split-mouth randomized, controlled, triple-blind trial with two treatment groups, prednisone (PG) and control (CG). All the parameters were assessed before the extraction (T0), two days (T1), and seven days after surgery (T2). Three-dimensional evaluation of facial swelling was performed with Bellus 3D Face App. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess pain. The maximum incisal distance was recorded with a calibrated rule to evaluate the trismus. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normal distribution of each variable. To compare the two study groups, the analysis of variance was performed using a two-tailed Student t-test for normal distributions. The level of significance was set at a = 0.05. Statistical analysis was conducted using the software STATA (STATA 11, StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were recruited with a mean age of 23.6 ± 3.7 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:3. A total of 64 M3Ms (32 right and 32 left) were randomly assigned to PG or CG. Surgery time recorded a mean value of 15.6 ± 3.7 min, without statistically significant difference between the groups. At T1, PG showed a significantly lower facial swelling compared to CG (PG: 3.3 ± 2.1 mm; CG: 4.2 ± 1.7 mm; p = 0.02). Similar results were recorded comparing the groups one week after surgery (PG: 1.2 ± 1.2; CG: 2.1 ± 1.3; p = 0.0005). All patients reported a decrease in facial swelling from T1 to T2 without differences between the two groups. At T1, the maximum buccal opening was significantly reduced than T0, and no difference between PG (35.6 ± 8.2 mm) and CG (33.7 ± 7.3 mm) (p > 0.05) was shown. Similar results were reported one week after surgery (PG: 33.2 ± 14.4 mm; CG: 33.7 ± 13.1 mm; p > 0.05). PG showed significantly lower pain values compared to CG, both at T1 (PG: 3.1 ± 1.5; CG: 4.6 ± 1.8; p = 0.0006) and T2 (PG: 1.0 ± 0.8; CG: 1.9 ± 1.4; p = 0.0063).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that pre-operative low-dose prednisone administration could reduce postoperative sequelae by improving patient comfort after M3M surgery and reducing facial swelling two days and one week after surgical procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov - NCT05830747 retrospectively recorded-Date of registration: 26/04/2023.

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.

Comparison of Submucosal With Intramuscular or Intravenous Administration of Dexamethasone for Third Molar Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The study aimed to review evidence on the efficacy of submucosal (SM) administration vs. intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) route of injections of dexamethasone for improving outcomes after mandibular third molar surgery. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 20th May 2021. Early (2-3 days) and late (7 days) outcomes were compared between SM vs. IV or IM dexamethasone. Quality of evidence was assessed based on GRADE. Results: Thirteen trials were included in the systematic review and 10 in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in early pain with IV dexamethasone but no such difference for late pain compared to the SM group. There was no difference in early and late swelling scores between the SM and IV groups. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in early and late trismus between SM and IV groups. Comparing SM with IM dexamethasone, there was no significant difference in early and late pain scores. Swelling in the early and late postoperative periods was not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in early and late trismus between SM and IM groups. The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence suggests that SM infiltration of dexamethasone results in similar outcomes as compared to IV or IM administration of the drug after third molar surgeries. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

Variations in reporting of clinician-reported outcome measures in third molar surgery: A focused review

Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinRO measures) play a fundamental role in quality assurance throughout healthcare systems. With commissioners turning ever more frequently to ClinRO data to evaluate and compare individual hospital performance and casemix, and funding decisions increasingly relying on these data, agreed core outcome sets (COS) are essential for the collection of standardised specialty-specific outcomes. Beyond their role in service commissioning, COS enable standardisation of outcomes in clinical studies, allowing comparisons to be drawn between similar trials as well as pooling of data for systematic reviews and metaanalyses. This review explores those ClinRO measures most commonly reported in the third molar literature, highlighting inconsistencies in ClinRO selection, measurement and reporting among researchers. We recognise here a prime opportunity for the specialty to address this lag in COS relative to other surgical specialties. With the Quality Outcomes in Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) overseeing the institution of many subspecialty-specific national databases in recent years, OMFS is well placed to develop a series of COS for each subspecialty domain for the benefit of researchers, clinicians and ultimately, patients.

Anti-Inflammatory Effectiveness of Oral Dexamethasone 4 mg on Mandibular Third Molar Surgeries: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the anti-inflammatory effect of oral dexamethasone 4 mg in a single dose preemptively administered to reduce pain, swelling, and trismus following mandibular third molar surgeries.

METHODS

A split-mouth randomized clinical trial was performed including 22 participants undergoing surgical removal of bilateral and symmetrically positioned third molars. A total of 44 teeth were allocated by simple randomization to either the test or nonintervention/control side. Oral dexamethasone 4 mg was administered on the test side an hour before the surgery. All of the participants were unaware of the medication studied, and only 1 surgeon, blinded to the medication intake, performed all of the procedures. Anti-inflammatory effect was evaluated using the clinical parameters of mouth opening, swelling, and rescue analgesic medication intake to control pain. The statistical analysis was blinded to the allocation groups, and a significance value P < .05 was adopted for all the tests.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone reduced the mean of rescue analgesic medication intake by 5 times (P = .002). Facial swelling was lower on the test side by 72h postsurgery in comparison with the control side (P = .036). No significant difference in mouth opening was found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive use of oral dexamethasone 4 mg proved to be effective in controlling pain and reducing the need for rescue medication and had a beneficial effect in reducing swelling during a short postoperative period.