Comparison of the effects of preemptive acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and meloxicam on pain after separator placement: 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.

Orthodontic pain control following arch wire placement; a comparison between pre-emptive tenoxicam and chewing gum: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Pain during fixed orthodontic treatment can have a detrimental effect on patient treatment compliance. To overcome this, there is a definite need to establish the best pain-relieving methods suitable for orthodontic patients in terms of efficacy and use. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of chewing gum and pre-emptive tenoxicam on pain after initial archwire placement and to evaluate the pain perceptions of orthodontic patients in the two groups while performing various functions at specific time intervals.

Methods

Forty-two patients were selected and randomly divided into two groups: group A (chewing gum) and group B (pre-emptive tenoxicam). Pain perception was documented by patients immediately; at 4 h; at bedtime on the day of archwire placement; the next morning; at 24 h; and at bedtime on the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th day after the initial archwire placement. Pain scores were noted during fitting of the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing using a visual analog scale. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

Group A showed a significant increase in pain until the next morning while fitting the posterior teeth, biting, and chewing [36.2, 52.0, 33.4, respectively]], followed by a gradual decrease by the 7th day. Group B showed a significant increase in pain at bedtime on biting, with a peak value of 47.5. Pain on chewing, fitting posterior teeth, peaked the morning of the next day (100.0, 45.0). The Freidman test showed a statistically significant difference with a p-value of < 0.01. Higher pain scores were observed while chewing and biting compared with that while fitting the posterior teeth in both groups. The overall comparison of pain control between the two groups was not statistically significant [P > 0.05] between the two groups.

Conclusions

Chewing gum was not inferior to pre-emptive tenoxicam. Thus, chewing gum is a non-pharmacological alternative to analgesics for orthodontic pain control that eliminates the chance of adverse reactions and can be used in the absence of adult observation.

Placebo modulation in orthodontic pain: a single-blind functional magnetic resonance study

OBJECTIVES

The mechanism of orthodontic pain modulation with a placebo remains largely unknown. This study aimed to investigate the placebo modulation of brain activity associated with orthodontic pain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

METHODS

This longitudinal fMRI experiment recruited 23 volunteers and a self-contrast method was used. At first time, the participants were scanned without placebo (first period), followed by a 30-day washout, the participants were scanned again with placebo administration (second period). Orthodontic pain was caused by orthodontic separators placement between the lower right molars for both two periods. 24 h after placement, the MRI scans were taken, including a bite/non-bite task fMRI and a resting-state fMRI. A generalized linear model was used to identify pain-regulating network from task fMRI. Functional connectivity analysis of pain-related brain regions was performed to study the placebo effect on connectivity of pain-regulating networks using resting-state fMRI.

RESULTS

The results of brain activation patterns were largely similar under placebo and non-placebo conditions. Under the non-placebo condition, the activities in multiple brain regions, including the pre-central gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, superior parietal lobule, and supramarginal gyrus, were significantly higher than that of the placebo condition. However, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was activated under the non-placebo condition but not in the placebo one. The functional connectivities between ACC and orbitofrontal cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex were reduced under placebo condition.

CONCLUSION

Participants demonstrated similar brain activation patterns for orthodontic pain with or without placebos. With placebo, reduced activation in primary sensory cortex and decreased activation in ACC indicated that ACC could be fundamental in analgesia.

Pain management strategies in penile implantation

The opioid epidemic continues to be a serious public health concern. Many have pointed to prescription drug misuse as a nidus for patients to become addicted to opioids and as such, urologists and other surgical subspecialists must critically define optimal pain management for the various procedures performed within their respective disciplines. Controlling pain following penile prosthesis implantation remains a unique challenge for urologists, given the increased pain patients commonly experience in the postoperative setting. Although most of the existing urological literature focuses on interventions performed in the operating room, there are many studies that examine the role of preoperative adjunctive pain medicine in diminishing postoperative narcotic requirements. There are relatively few studies looking at postoperative strategies for managing pain in prosthetic surgery with follow-up past the immediate hospitalization. This review assess the various strategies employed for managing pain following penile implantation through the lens of the current state of the opioid crisis, thus examining how urologists can responsibly treat pain without contributing to the growing threat of opioid addiction.

Effects of ibuprofen and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain by means of the analysis of interleukin 1-beta and substance P levels in the gingival crevicular fluid

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the effects of ibuprofen and low-level laser therapy in alleviating orthodontic pain observed after elastomeric separator placement (ESP) by means of the analysis of interleukin 1‑beta (IL-1β) and substance P (SP) levels in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and visual analog scale (VAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 subjects requiring ESP for the banding of maxillary first molars were randomly assigned to the ibuprofen, laser, and control groups. The ibuprofen and control groups received, respectively, 400 mg ibuprofen and placebo lactose tablets orally 1 h before ESP; the laser group received a single low-level laser irradiation session immediately after ESP. GCF samples were collected immediately after ESP (day 0) and on days 1, 3, and 7. Pain intensity was evaluated using the VAS immediately after ESP (baseline) and at hours 2 and 6, as well as on days 1, 3, and 7.

RESULTS

Although IL-1β levels increased significantly on days 1, 3, and 7 compared to day 0, intergroup comparison results revealed insignificant differences. SP levels indicated insignificant within-group differences. Only the SP levels of the ibuprofen group showed a significant decrease on days 0 and 1 compared to the laser and control groups. In all groups, VAS scores increased from baseline to a peak level on day 1, followed by a significant decrease on days 3 and 7. Intergroup comparison results of VAS scores indicated less pain intensity in the ibuprofen group compared to the control group at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Only the ibuprofen group exhibited significant decreases in SP levels on days 0 and 1, as well as in VAS scores at baseline.

Preemptive Oral Compared With Intravenous Acetaminophen for Postoperative Pain After Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain after robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy when giving preoperative oral compared with intravenous acetaminophen.

METHODS

This double-blind randomized trial included women undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Participants received either acetaminophen 1 g orally then normal saline 100 mL intravenously before surgery, or a placebo orally then acetaminophen 1 g intravenously. The primary outcome measured was difference in pain between the groups 2 hours postoperatively. A sample size of 74 participants (37/group) was needed to achieve 80% power to detect noninferiority using a one-sided, two-sample t-test with an alpha of 0.025 and a noninferiority margin of 10 mm.

RESULTS

From April 2016 through August 2017, 77 patients were enrolled, with 75 participants included in the final analysis. Characteristics were similar between groups. No difference in average pain score was noted 2 hours after surgery, nor at any of the measured time points. Average scores for the oral and intravenous group, respectively, at 2 hours were 35 and 36 mm (P=.86), at 4 hours 36 and 37 mm (P=.96), and at 24 hours 35 and 36 mm (P=.79). Thirty-eight percent of participants in the oral group and 19% of participants in the intravenous group experienced nausea (P=.12). The oral group used 9.7 morphine equivalents in the recovery room, and the intravenous group used 9.5 morphine equivalents (P=.9). The oral group requested analgesia in 45 minutes on average, and the intravenous group requested analgesia in 43 minutes (P=.79).

CONCLUSION

No difference in pain was observed 2 hours postoperatively when comparing preoperative administration of oral compared with intravenous acetaminophen. Given the ease of administration and lower cost of oral dosing, this study supports the oral route as part of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03391284.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of the Perception of Pain during Fixed Orthodontic Treatment with Metal and Ceramic Brackets

Introduction:

Pain is experienced by patients during various fixed orthodontic procedures such as placement of separators, insertion of arch wire and its activations, orthopedic appliances such as headgear, and debonding of the appliance. This study was formulated with the background that the level of pain sensation differs between conventional metal and ceramic brackets, arch wire being the same.

Materials and Methods:

The sample comprised 40 patients. The patients were separated into two groups: Group A (metal brackets) and Group B (ceramic brackets). In Group A, the brackets were bonded with 0.022” conventional stainless steel brackets (Unitek Gemini, 3M, Monrovia, California). In Group B, the brackets were bonded with ceramic brackets (Unitek Gemini Clear Brackets, 3M, Monrovia, California). The bonding of the brackets was carried out according to the conventional etching, priming, and curing technique. A 0.016” NiTi (nickel titanium) arch wire was used as the first arch wire. The intensity of pain was documented in a figure containing two 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs).

Results:

The level of pain reduced in intensity in due course. During 1 month, VAS scores increased at the end of day 1 (24 h) for the metal and ceramic group. The pain then decreased for up to 5 days. The average pain intensity reached 4.44 in the ceramic group, whereas it was 2.7 in the metal group for the upper anterior region. It decreased up to 1 in the ceramic and 0.22 in the metal group.

Conclusion:

Patients bonded with ceramic brackets experienced a higher and more severe pain of longer duration than individuals treated with conventional brackets.

Comparing the effectiveness profile of pharmacological interventions used for orthodontic pain relief: an arm-based multilevel network meta-analysis of longitudinal data

Background and objectives

We compare the effectiveness profile of various analgesics used for orthodontic pain relief over a 1-week time period by conducting a longitudinal network meta-analysis (NMA).

Search methods

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched till 31st December 2015 to identify the relevant studies. Additional studies were identified by hand searching journals and reference lists. Unpublished literature was also searched.

Selection criteria

Eligible studies were randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for pain relief after placement of separator or initial aligning arch wire.

Data collection and analysis

Pain intensity data at 2, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 168 hours was collected. In addition, data were also extracted for potential covariates (age, sex, and procedure). A covariate-adjusted arm-based multilevel random coefficient model was used for evidence synthesis.

Results

Fifteen RCTs (1341 participants; male/females 595, 44.6%/746 55.4%; mean age 17.3 years, SD 4.1) were included. A total of 11 nodes (Acetaminophen, Aspirin, Etoricoxib, Flurbiprofen, Ibuprofen, Lumiracoxib, Meloxicam, Naproxen, Piroxicam, Placebo, and Control) were identified out of which five nodes (Placebo, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Acetaminophen, and Aspirin) had subnodes (based on timing of administration). Compared to Control, Placebo, Flurbiprofen, Lumiracoxib, and Meloxicam were not significantly effective. Etoricoxib (most effective) and Piroxicam (second most effective) were effective over a long period which lasted up to 96 and 72 hours, respectively. Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, Naproxen, and Aspirin were effective at 6, 12, and 24 hours. The effectiveness of these analgesics was significantly influenced by the timing of administration. Assessment of heterogeneity, transitivity, inconsistency, and publication bias revealed no major threat to the NMA derived estimates.

Conclusion

Compared to the Control, Placebo was least effective whereas Etoricoxib was the most effective analgesic in reducing orthodontic pain. Administration timing has significant influence on the effectiveness profile of analgesics routinely used for managing orthodontic pain.

Pre-treatment with Meloxicam Prevents the Spinal Inflammation and Oxidative Stress in DRG Neurons that Accompany Painful Cervical Radiculopathy

Painful neuropathic injuries are accompanied by robust inflammatory and oxidative stress responses that contribute to the development and maintenance of pain. After neural trauma the inflammatory enzyme cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) increases concurrent with pain onset. Although pre-treatment with the COX-2 inhibitor, meloxicam, before a painful nerve root compression prevents the development of pain, the pathophysiological mechanisms are unknown. This study evaluated if pre-treatment with meloxicam prior to painful root injury prevents pain by reducing spinal inflammation and peripheral oxidative stress. Glial activation and expression of the inflammatory mediator secreted phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) in the spinal cord were assessed at day 7 using immunohistochemistry. The extent of oxidative damage was measured using the oxidative stress marker, 8-hydroxyguanosine (8-OHG) and localization of 8-OHG with neurons, microglia and astrocytes in the spinal cord and peripherally in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) at day 7. In addition to reducing pain, meloxicam reduced both spinal microglial and astrocytic activation at day 7 after nerve root compression. Spinal sPLA2 was also reduced with meloxicam treatment, with decreased production in neurons, microglia and astrocytes. Oxidative damage following nerve root compression was found predominantly in neurons rather than glial cells. The expression of 8-OHG in DRG neurons at day 7 was reduced with meloxicam. These findings suggest that meloxicam may prevent the onset of pain following nerve root compression by suppressing inflammation and oxidative stress both centrally in the spinal cord and peripherally in the DRG.

The comparison of single-dose preemptive intravenous ibuprofen and paracetamol on postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption after open septorhinoplasty: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Septorhinoplasty is performed in combination with septoplasty and rhinoplasty operations and is characterized by severe postoperative pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate preemptive effects of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen and IV paracetamol on opioid consumption and pain scores after open septorhinoplasty.

METHODS

The study included 150 patients who had undergone elective open septorhinoplasty. Patients were randomly assigned into three groups; Group Control (Group C, n = 50) received 100 ml saline solution, Group Paracetamol (Group P, n = 50) received 1000 mg IV paracetamol in 100 ml solution, and Group Ibuprofen (Group I, n = 50) received 800 mg IV ibuprofen in 100 ml saline before surgery. Postoperative analgesia was achieved by opioid administration via patient-controlled analgesia. Visual analog scores (VASs), postoperative opioid consumption, additional analgesic requirements, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group C, VASs in Group P and Group I were statistically lower at all time points (p < 0.05). VAS was lower in Group I than in Group P at postoperative, 1st and 6th hours (p < 0.05). Opioid consumption in Group C was highest in all groups at all time periods (p < 0.05). At the 0-6 and 6-12 time intervals, total opioid consumption was significantly lower in Group I compared to Group P (p < 0.05). Total opioid consumption was highest in Group C (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has indicated that ibuprofen has more analgesic effect than paracetamol during first 12 h, but there is a non-inferiority between ibuprofen and paracetamol after first 12 h.

Optimal management of orthodontic pain

Pain is an undesirable side effect of orthodontic tooth movement, which causes many patients to give up orthodontic treatment or avoid it altogether. The aim of this study was to investigate, through an analysis of the scientific literature, the best method for managing orthodontic pain. The methodological aspects involved careful definition of keywords and diligent search in databases of scientific articles published in the English language, without any restriction of publication date. We recovered 1281 articles. After the filtering and classification of these articles, 56 randomized clinical trials were selected. Of these, 19 evaluated the effects of different types of drugs for the control of orthodontic pain, 16 evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain, and 21 evaluated other methods of pain control. Drugs reported as effective in orthodontic pain control included ibuprofen, paracetamol, naproxen sodium, aspirin, etoricoxib, meloxicam, piroxicam, and tenoxicam. Most studies report favorable outcomes in terms of alleviation of orthodontic pain with the use of low-level laser therapy. Nevertheless, we noticed that there is no consensus, both for the drug and for laser therapy, on the doses and clinical protocols most appropriate for orthodontic pain management. Alternative methods for orthodontic pain control can also broaden the clinician's range of options in the search for better patient care.

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

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

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.

Methodologies in Orthodontic Pain Management: A Review

Introduction:

Patients experience pain and discomfort during active orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Pain is considered a subjective response to noxious stimuli. It can vary from person to person and is influenced by certain factors such as age, gender, previous pain experiences, stress or anxiety, and type of appliance.

Objective:

The objective of this literature review was to discuss conventional versus recently introduced treatment modalities used in pain management for orthodontic patients.

Discussion:

According to the reviewed articles, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods were introduced in orthodontic pain management. However, orthodontists must use their best professional judgment to assess each case individually and select an appropriate treatment modality based on pain threshold level of an individual.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, further investigations are required in this field.

Meloxicam medication reduces orthodontically induced dental root resorption and tooth movement velocity: a combined in vivo and in vitro study of dental-periodontal cells and tissue

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are used to alleviate pain sensations during orthodontic therapy but are also assumed to interfere with associated pseudo-inflammatory reactions. In particular, the effects of partially selective COX-2 inhibition over the constitutively expressed COX-1 (11:1) on periodontal cells and tissue, as induced by the NSAID meloxicam, remain unclear. We investigate possible adverse side-effects and potentially useful beneficial effects during orthodontic therapy and examine underlying cellular and tissue reactions. We randomly assigned 63 male Fischer344 rats to three consecutive experiments of 21 animals each (cone-beam computed tomography; histology/serology; reverse-transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction) in three experimental groups (n = 7; control; orthodontic tooth movement [OTM] of the first/second upper left molars [NiTi coil spring, 0.25 N]; OTM with a daily oral meloxicam dose of 3 mg/kg). In vitro, we stimulated human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (hPDL) with orthodontic pressure (2 g/cm²) with/without meloxicam (10 μM). In vivo, meloxicam significantly reduced serum C-reactive protein concentration, tooth movement velocity, orthodontically induced dentine root resorption (OIRR), osteoclast activity and the relative expression of inflammatory/osteoclast marker genes within the dental-periodontal tissue, while presenting good gastric tolerance. In vitro, we observed a corresponding significant decrease of prostaglandin E₂/interleukin-6/RANKL(-OPG) expression and of hPDL-mediated osteoclastogenesis. By inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, meloxicam seems to downregulate hPDL-mediated inflammation, RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis and, consequently, tooth movement velocity by about 50%, thus limiting its suitability for analgesia during orthodontic therapy. However, its protective effects regarding OIRR and good tolerance profile suggest future prophylactic application, which merits its further investigation.

Efficacy of preoperative ibuprofen and meloxicam on the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block for teeth with irreversible pulpitis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether premedication with ibuprofen or meloxicam increases the success rate of anaesthesia in teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this parallel, double-blind clinical trial, 92 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were randomly divided into four groups of 23 patients. The first group (the no-premedication group) received no premedication, the second group (the meloxicam group) received 7.5 mg of meloxicam, the third group (the ibuprofen group) received 600 mg of ibuprofen, and the fourth group (the placebo group) received placebo 1 hour before intervention. Before taking the medication, electrical pulp testing (EPT) and the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS) were used to evaluate sensitivity and pain at baseline. Then, local anaesthesia was injected, and after 15 minutes, EPT was used again to evaluate tooth sensitivity. The pain during access preparation was also recorded using the Heft-Parker VAS.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were analysed. The success rates of local anaesthesia were 21.7%, 34.8%, 78.3% and 73.9% in the no-premedication, placebo, ibuprofen and meloxicam groups, respectively, according to the EPT values. Considering the Heft-Parker VAS values, no premedication gave a 21.7% success rate, placebo gave a 34.8% success rate, ibuprofen gave an 82.6% success rate and meloxicam gave a 65.2% success rate. The ibuprofen and meloxicam groups showed significantly better results than the placebo and no-premedication groups (P < 0.001). However, the difference between meloxicam and ibuprofen groups was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with meloxicam and ibuprofen significantly increased the success rates of inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia for teeth with irreversible pulpitis; however, neither drug provided profound anaesthesia.