Effect of preoperative prednisolone on clinical postoperative symptoms after surgical extractions of mandibular third molars

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.

Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

A novel therapeutic approach for reducing postoperative inflammatory complications after impacted mandibular third molar removal

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare effect of combined use of dexamethasone and honey versus each agent alone in controlling complications associated with removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

METHODS

This randomized clinical study included patients suffering from impacted mandibular wisdom teeth. Patients were divided randomly into 4 groups. Group I, control, group II, received dexamethasone injection preoperatively, group III, received honey locally in the wound after extraction, and group IV, received dexamethasone injection preoperatively and topical honey application. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively to assess facial edema, interincisal distance, pain, and total analgesic dose used.

RESULTS

Significant edema developed in group I than other groups and improved significantly in group II and III on seventh postoperative day, and tenth postoperative day in group I. Insignificant edema developed in group IV. Significant decrease in interincisal distance occurred in all groups on third postoperative day that improved significantly on seventh postoperative days in all groups except group I, it improved on tenth postoperative day. Pain was significantly minimum in group IV than other groups and its maximum degree was in group I.

CONCLUSION

Both dexamethasone and honey are an effective way of minimizing swelling, pain, and trismus after removal of impacted lower third molars. Both agents either alone or in combination provide simple, safe, painless, and cost-effective method to eliminate postoperative discomfort. However, dexamethasone or honey can decrease complications related to surgical extraction of mandibular third molar, the simultaneous application of both agents is more effective method in this regard.

What Are the Effects of Methylprednisolone Injection Into the Masseter and Gluteal Muscle on Pain, Edema and Trismus After Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery? A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Methylprednisolone is widely administered after impacted third molar surgery. This study compared the effect of methylprednisolone injection into the masseter and gluteal muscle on pain, edema, and trismus after impacted lower third molar surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Sixty patients with an impacted lower third molar were included and randomly assigned into 3 groups. Each group received 1 of the following medications half an hour before surgery: Group I: 40 mg methylprednisolone injected into masseter muscle; Group II: 40 mg methylprednisolone injected into gluteal muscle; Group III: considered as control group with no intervention. The level of pain was recorded 1, 5, and 7 days after surgery using visual analog scale, and the amount of edema was measured 5 and 7 days after surgery using ultrasound imaging. The amount of trismus was measured 5 and 7 days after surgery based on the distance between incisor edge of upper and lower centrals. Friedman test was used to compare the level of pain, trismus and edema in each group at different times. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the level of pain, trismus and edema among different groups at each time. Significance level was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference among the 3 groups (a total of 60 patients (31 females and 29 males), aged 19 to 35 years) considering edema (P = .250, CI = 0.22 ± 0.42), trismus (P = .337, CI = -5.93 ± 2.22) and pain (P = .285, CI = -2.91 ± 0.40) relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Postsurgical pain, edema, and trismus were not reduced by intramuscular injection of methylprednisolone before third molar surgery.

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.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Different Dosages of Corticosteroid and Routes of Administration in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in facial swelling, pain and trismus after surgical removal of mandibular third molar with different dosages of corticosteroids and administration routes.

Material and Methods

A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase database and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted by including randomized controlled trials published in English until 1^st December 2017.

Results

Seven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Considerable variation in the included studies prevented meta-analysis from being performed. Preoperative submucosal injection of corticosteroids significantly diminishes facial swelling, pain and trismus compared with placebo. However, different dosages of corticosteroid and administration routes reveal contrary results indicating that administration of a higher dosage of corticosteroids do not necessarily cause a further decrease in facial swelling, pain and trismus.

Conclusions

Consequently, the optimal dosage of corticosteroids and administration route for diminishing postsurgical morbidity and improve quality of life after surgical removal of mandibular third molar is presently unknown. Therefore, further well-designed randomized clinical trials including a standardised protocol, patient-reported outcome measures and three-dimensional analysis of facial swelling is needed.

Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the effect of bupivacaine and articaine at habitual doses on pain intensity and the need for analgesics after lower third molar extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The final study sample comprised 50 Caucasian volunteers (26 males and 24 females; age range, 18-30 years) undergoing scheduled surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar. A computer-generated random sequence was used to allocate participants to the articaine (4%) or bupivacaine (0.5%) group. Surgeons and patients were blinded by labeling the articaine and bupivacaine carpules with numbers (1 and 2, respectively). Postoperative pain intensity (primary outcome) was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS), while the requirement for and timing of rescue medication and the quality of intraoperative anesthesia were also measured (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

VAS-measured pain intensity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the articaine group than in the bupivacaine group at all time points except for 8 h post-surgery (p = 0.052). Rescue medication was required by 13 (52%) patients in the articaine group and 8 (32%) patients in the bupivacaine group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.252). The groups did not significantly differ (p = 0.391) in the quality of the intraoperative anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupivacaine is a valid alternative to articaine in third molar surgery and may offer residual anesthesia as a means of reducing postoperative pain. However, further well-designed RCTs are required in larger study populations to verify the effectiveness of bupivacaine to achieve residual analgesia after oral surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be useful as a coadjuvant to control acute postoperative pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12617001138370.

A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Submucosal Injection of Dexamethasone Versus Methylprednisolone in Reducing Postoperative Sequelae After Third Molar Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of preoperative submucosal injection of 4 mg of dexamethasone versus 40 mg of methylprednisolone in reducing postoperative sequelae after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included 65 patients who required surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars with Class II or position B impaction (Pell and Gregory classification). Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, or placebo (control). Surgery was performed with patients under local anesthesia. Baseline measurements were obtained preoperatively, and subsequent assessments were made on postoperative day 1, 2, 5, and 7 to measure postoperative facial swelling by use of 2 linear measurements: interincisal mouth opening width and visual analog scale score for pain. The amount of analgesics consumed was recorded. Wound healing also was assessed on postoperative day 7. Descriptive and multivariate statistics were computed, and significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Both methylprednisolone and dexamethasone significantly reduced swelling and trismus (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test), whereas the methylprednisolone group had significantly less pain (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test) and consumed a lower amount of analgesics (P < .05, χ² test) during the early postoperative days.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings suggest that a single preoperative dose of dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone was equally effective in reducing postoperative swelling and trismus. Pain control by these corticosteroids, however, was variable.

Effect of submucosal or oral administration of prednisolone on postoperative sequelae following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar: A randomized controlled study

Background:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of preoperatively administered submucosal and oral prednisolone on postoperative pain, facial swelling, and trismus following third molar surgery.

Patients and Methods:

This was a randomized controlled trial in which subjects were randomly distributed into three groups. Group A consisted of subjects who received 40 mg oral prednisolone; Group B consisted of subjects who received 40 mg submucosal injection of prednisolone while Group C consisted of subjects who did not receive prednisolone. Each group had 62 subjects. Measurements for facial width/facial swelling, pain, and mouth opening were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. The postoperative evaluation points were postoperative days 1, 3, and 7. These measurements were compared with the preoperative values both within and among the groups.

Results:

Most of the subjects were in their third decade of life. A considerable increase in the mean postoperative values for pain, facial width and trismus was observed. Notably, subjects who did not receive prednisolone showed comparatively higher values for the measured parameters throughout the postoperative evaluation period. Subjects who received submucosal injection of prednisolone showed overall lower values compared to those who received oral prednisolone.

Conclusion:

The results of this study indicate that the administration of prednisolone has a significantly beneficial effect in ameliorating the postoperative sequelae of the third molar surgery. In addition, the effect of submucosally injected prednisolone is comparable to the orally administered prednisolone; indeed it shows superiority to the latter in a number of dimensions. Submucosal injection of prednisolone offers a simple, effective, easy, safe, and minimally invasive option to existing therapeutic methods of reducing these postoperative sequelae.

Do Corticosteroids Still Have a Role in the Management of Third Molar Surgery?

INTRODUCTION

The use of corticosteroids to reduce the post-operative sequelae of lower third molar surgery, namely pain, swelling and trismus, has been well studied by many researchers over the past 6 decades. This study reviewed the reported outcome of corticosteroids used in controlling the above sequalae after third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Google search was undertaken of all controlled clinical trials on the effects of corticosteroids on pain, swelling and trismus after lower third molar surgery. The review was limited to studies published over the last 10 years (2006-2015).

RESULTS

Of the 46 initially retrieved articles, 34 were finally included. Eleven studies compared the effect of 2 similar (but different dose) or different group of corticosteroids. Thirty-one studies reported the effects of corticosteroids on all sequale, 2 reported the outcome on swelling and trismus and another 1 on swelling and pain only. In 16 of the studies, corticosteroid use resulted in significant reductions in pain after third molar removal. Twenty-two out of 29 studies reported reduced swelling against negative control while 18 out of 25 studies reported improved mouth opening. Fourteen studies reported the benefit of corticosteroids on all 3 sequelae, with 71.4% resulted from the use of methylprednisolone.

CONCLUSION

Although there are some conflicting effects, the results of this analysis shows in general the benefits derived from short-term use of corticosteroids in relation to pain, swelling and trismus following third molar surgical extraction, with no side effects observed.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the University of Malaya's High Impact Research grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/05.

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.

Effect of the route of administration of methylprednisolone on oedema and trismus in impacted lower third molar surgery

Due to their anatomical position, the surgical removal of impacted third molars results in oedema, pain, and trismus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of supraperiosteal injection of methylprednisolone compared with an oral tablet form and intravenous (i.v.) injection in the prevention of postoperative pain and oedema associated with inflammation. This randomized, prospective, and controlled study included 44 patients. The patients were randomly divided into four groups: group 1 (control; no steroids), group 2 (local injection), group 3 (oral tablets), and group 4 (i.v. injection). On days 2 and 7 following surgery, linear oedema was determined using facial landmarks, and maximal mouth opening was measured. Postoperative mouth opening and swelling were evaluated for each route of methylprednisolone administration and compared. The female (59%) to male (41%) ratio was 1.44; the mean age of the patients was 29.6 years. The level of significance was set at P<0.01 for mouth opening and P<0.05 for oedema. With regard to trismus, all three routes of administration demonstrated better efficacy in comparison to the control. While oral administration and i.v. injection of methylprednisolone achieved similar results, masseter injection provided better results in reducing oedema and trismus when compared to the control following lower third molar surgery.

A single dose of amoxicillin and dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative complications in third molar surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a single prophylactic dose of amoxicillin and/or dexamethasone in preventing postoperative complications (PC) after a surgical removal of a single mandibular third molar (M3).

Methods

This study is a randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial. Four groups were included: Group 1 (G1) included a prophylactic dose of 2 g of amoxicillin and 8 mg of dexamethasone; Group 2 (G2) included a prophylactic dose of 2 g of amoxicillin and 8 mg of placebo; Group 3 (G3) included a prophylactic dose of 8 mg of dexamethasone and 2 g of placebo and; Group 4 (G4) placebo.

Results

Fifty patients were included. It was observed one case of alveolar infection (2%) and two of alveolar osteitis (4%) resulting in three PC (6%). No statistical differences were observed between therapeutic groups for development of PC, trismus, pain and edema. The use of antibiotics showed an absolute risk reduction (ARR) for PC development of 3.52% and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 29.

Conclusion

Prophylactic antibiotics and corticoid in a single dose regimen did not bring any benefit on M3 surgeries.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Techniques in Tongue Base Surgery in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Objective. To compare the effectiveness and morbidity of 3 microinvasive tongue base surgical procedures combined with uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) in supine-dependent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients.

Study Design. A prospective, randomized clinical study.

Setting. A tertiary referral center.

Methods. Fifty OSA patients were randomly advised to undergo UPPP combined with low-temperature bipolar radiofrequency (group 1), submucosal minimally invasive lingual excision with radiofrequency (SMILE-R; group 2), or submucosal minimally invasive lingual excision with a harmonic scalpel (SMILE-H; group 3). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the visual analog scale (VAS) for snoring, the pre- and postoperative 3-month polysomnography (PSG) findings, and the decrease in tongue volume using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared. The operation times, the postoperative pain VAS score, the analgesic requirement, and the time in commencing a normal diet were compared in the 3 groups.

Results. The decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and supine AHI values at the postoperative 3-month time point was significant in group 2 ( P < .05). The decrease in tongue volume at the 3-month postoperative time point according to the MRI evaluations was higher in groups 1 and 2 ( P < .05). In the subjective comparison of effectiveness, there was no significant difference. The operation time was significantly lower in group 3. In the assessment of postoperative pain, no significant difference was found between the groups.

Conclusion. When the PSG findings and MRI were evaluated, UPPP + SMILE-R were found to be more effective. No significant difference was found between the 3 techniques when morbidity and complications were compared.