The Efficacy and Clinical Safety of Various Analgesic Combinations for Post-Operative Pain after Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evaluation of the effects of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration on preemptive multimodal analgesia and anxiety in third molar surgeries: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration in preemptive analgesia and anxiety control in lower third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A triple-blind, split-mouth clinical trial conducted with patients divided into two groups: control group, receiving placebo and dexamethasone, and test group, receiving pregabalin and dexamethasone preoperatively. The evaluated variables were pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), anxiety assessed through the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaires, hemodynamic parameters [Blood Pressure (BP), Heart Rate (HR), Oxygen Saturation (SpO2)], and sedation assessed by the Ramsay scale.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were included. The test group exhibited a significant reduction in pain at 2,4,6,8,12,16,24, and 48 h after surgery and in the consumption of rescue analgesics. Anxiety, evaluated by STAI and VAS, showed a significant decrease in the test group (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant decrease in BP at most of the assessed time points (p < 0.05) and a significant reduction in HR at two different time intervals (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), indicating a positive effect in the test group. There was no significant difference in SpO2 between the groups. Sedation assessment revealed a significant difference at all time points favoring the test group (p < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin coadministered with dexamethasone demonstrated significant efficacy in controlling postoperative pain and anxiety, as well as a sedative effect.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The coadministration of pregabalin with dexamethasone may presents potential advantages in both pain modulation and psychological well-being of individuals undergoing third molar surgeries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC), No. RBR-378h6t6.

Efficacy of auriculotherapy in the control of pain, edema, and trismus following surgical extraction of the lower third molars: a split-mouth, randomized, placebo-controlled, and triple-blind study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this split-mouth, randomized, placebo-controlled, and triple-blind study was to evaluate whether auriculotherapy had any effect on the post-operative course after the extraction of third molars in terms of the control of pain, edema, and trismus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 42 patients (84 teeth) who had undergone a surgical extraction of the lower third molars. In each patient, the two extractions were randomly assigned to two study groups. In the therapy group, the patients underwent auriculotherapy with vaccaria seeds applied with patches in 6 ear points. In the control group, the patches were applied, without seeds, to the same ear points. After the extraction, the patients were asked to stimulate the ear points three times a day and whenever they felt pain. The patients were asked to keep a diary in which they assessed their pain by means of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for 8 days. Edema and trismus were assessed 1, 2, 3, and 8 days after surgery.

RESULTS

The differences between the two groups were statistically significant at the 12-h control (auriculotherapy group (AG) VAS 5.5 [IQR 4.25-6.75], placebo group (PG) VAS 6 [IQR 5-8], p = 0.040), after 24 h (AG VAS 5 [IQR 4-6], PG VAS 6 [IQR 4.25-7], p = 0.024), after 2 days (AG VAS 4 [IQR 3-5], PG VAS 4.5 [IQR 4-6], p = 0.044), and after 3 days (AG VAS 3 [IQR 0-5], PG VAS 4 [IQR 3-5], p = 0.024). Throughout the observation period, the AG took a significantly lower number of painkillers than the PG (AG 6 [IQR 4.25-7]; PG 8 [IQR 8-9], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the levels of edema and trismus between the two groups throughout the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the results of the present study, auriculotherapy can be considered as a cost-effective adjuvant pain reliever treatment in patients undergoing an extraction of the lower third molars.

The Predictive Value of Cold Pack Test for Pain After Third Molar Surgery

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients who are prone to postoperative pain may provide individualization of postoperative analgesia strategies.

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to investigate whether the cold pack test is associated with postoperative pain levels after mandibular third molar surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

This prospective cohort study included healthy male patients admitted to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of a tertiary health-care center between June 2022 and December 2022 and scheduled for lower third molar extraction. Those who had used any analgesic within the past 10 days or had a history of intolerance/allergy to analgesics were excluded.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The primary predictor variable was pain tolerance, measured using the endurance test score. Subjects were grouped into two categories, low tolerance test score (withdrew the hand from the cold pack in <240 seconds) and high tolerance test score (maintained the hand on the cold pack for 240 seconds).

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES

The primary outcome variable was pain measured by the patients from 0 to 10 with the visual analog scale, and the secondary outcome variables were the amount of ibuprofen and paracetamol consumed in the postoperative period. Pain measurements and ibuprofen consumption were recorded at 0-2, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80, 88, and 96 hours (0-2 interval of the first 2 hours immediately after surgery).

COVARIATES

Age, classification and position of mandibular third molar were utilized as covariates.

ANALYSES

The relationship between pain tolerance and postoperative pain was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Fisher exact test. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 28.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 30 male patients with a mean age of 22.5 ± 4.8 years were included in our study. In the group with low pain tolerance, the pain scores at the first 2 hours, 32, and 48 hours after the operation (4.55 ± 3.59, 2.91 ± 2.59, 2.91 ± 2.43, respectively) were found to be significantly higher than the group with high pain tolerance (2.00 ± 2.67, 0.95 ± 1.68, 0.95 ± 1.39, respectively) (P < .05). In the first 2 hours after the operation, the amount of ibuprofen consumed was also significantly higher in the group with low pain tolerance compared to the other group, and 81.8% of this group felt the need to consume ibuprofen (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The cold pack test, a more practical version of quantitative sensory testing, is useful in identifying male patients at risk of developing greater pain after third molar surgery. It can be helpful to provide effective analgesia in male patients with different pain tolerance thresholds.

Preemptive use of anti-inflammatories and analgesics in oral surgery: a review of systematic reviews

Objectives: This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. Materials and methods: The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure (n = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach (n = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. Conclusion: Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used.

Efficacy of Chlorhexidine after Oral Surgery Procedures on Wound Healing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Our objective was to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, available evidence on the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) when applied after oral surgery on wound healing and related clinical parameters. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published before January 2023. The quality of the methodology used in primary-level studies was assessed using the RoB2 tool; meta-analyses were performed jointly with heterogeneity and small-study effect analyses. Thirty-three studies and 4766 cases were included. The results point out that the application of CHX was significantly more effective, compared to controls where CHX was not employed, providing better wound healing after oral surgery (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.55-0.80, p < 0.001). Stratified meta-analyses confirmed the higher efficacy of 0.20% CHX gel vs. other vehicles and concentrations (p < 0.001, respectively). Likewise, the addition of chitosan to CHX significantly increased the efficacy of surgical wound healing (p < 0.001). The use of CHX has also been significantly beneficial in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after any type of dental extraction (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.39-0.53, p < 0.001) and has also been effective when applied as a gel for a reduction in pain after the surgical extraction of third molars (MD = -0.97, 95% CI = -1.26 to -0.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate on the basis of evidence that the application of CHX exerts a beneficial effect on wound healing after oral surgical procedures, significantly decreasing the patient's risk of developing surgical complications and/or poor wound healing. This benefit was greater when CHX was used at 0.20% in gel form with the addition of chitosan.

Application of sequential multimodal analgesia before and after impacted mandibular third molar extraction: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Several analgesics have been applied under various protocols to control the moderate-to-severe postoperative pain caused by the surgical extraction of an impacted mandibular third molar. However, a consensus on optimal pain management while minimizing side effects is yet to be reached.

Methods

This multi-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sequential multimodal analgesia combined with postoperative zaltoprofen along with multiple preemptive analgesics. A total of 80 participants with bilateral impacted mandibular third molar from two hospitals were randomized into two groups. Two surgical extractions were performed at one-month intervals, and in a crossover design, celecoxib or tramadol/acetaminophen was administered before one extraction and placebo before the other extraction. Following extraction, all subjects took zaltoprofen for 5 days. The outcome measures included pain at specific times, time and intensity of the first pain onset after extraction, need of rescue drugs, and occurrence and frequency of side effects.

Conclusions

This ongoing clinical trial was designed to provide evidence regarding a new protocol for effective postoperative pain management of a commonly performed surgical extraction. The results of this study will provide guidance to clinicians regarding the timing and combination of oral analgesics in various oral surgeries performed under local anesthesia.

Trial registration

KCT0005450, registered on October 7, 2020.

Efficacy of oxycodone for postoperative dental pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Dental pain is a commonly managed presentation in medicine and dentistry, where oxycodone is often prescribed. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine and quantify the effectiveness of oxycodone for acute dental pain.

DATA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and comparative studies were included involving patients >12 years, where oxycodone was trialled for dental pain.

SOURCES

Three databases were searched: Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid and Web of Science. Two authors independently screened title and abstracts for relevance, extracted data and performed bias assessments.

STUDY SELECTION

Of 148 potentially relevant studies, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and of the 13, nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were single-dose analgesia for surgical third molar extractions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone produced more effective analgesia in combination with paracetamol. In the meta-analysis, monotherapy etoricoxib and rofecoxib showed significant pain relief compared to combination oxycodone/paracetamol (SPID6 mean difference=-2.13, CI=-3.29, -0.98; TOTPAR6 mean difference=-2.98, CI=-4.90, -1.06). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were more effective than oxycodone/paracetamol combinations, however, the evidence would become weak in a future study with a similar patient setting due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (SPID6 and TOTPAR6 prediction interval -4.471, 0.207 and -7.28, 1.32 respectively).

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior than oxycodone/paracetamol combinations, although some patient populations may experience similar effects to the combined oxycodone/paracetamol combination.

The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS)-a comparison of opioid vs. non-opioid combination analgesics for management of post-surgical pain: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

Everyday people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose-related addiction. Dentists are among the leading prescribers of opioid analgesics. Opioid-seeking behaviors have been linked to receipt of initial opioid prescriptions following the common dental procedure of third molar extraction. With each opioid prescription, a patient’s risk for opioid misuse or abuse increases. With an estimated 56 million tablets of 5 mg hydrocodone annually prescribed after third molar extractions in the USA, 3.5 million young adults may be unnecessarily exposed to opioids by dentists who are inadvertently increasing their patient’s risk for addiction.

Methods

A double-blind, stratified randomized, multi-center clinical trial has been designed to evaluate whether a combination of over-the-counter non-opioid-containing analgesics is not inferior to the most prescribed opioid analgesic. The impacted 3rd molar extraction model is being used due to the predictable severity of the post-operative pain and generalizability of results. Within each site/clinic and gender type (male/female), patients are randomized to receive either OPIOID (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 mg) or NON-OPIOID (ibuprofen/acetaminophen 400/500 mg). Outcome data include pain levels, adverse events, overall patient satisfaction, ability to sleep, and ability to perform daily functions. To develop clinical guidelines and a clinical decision-making tool, pain management, extraction difficulty, and the number of tablets taken are being collected, enabling an experimental decision-making tool to be developed.

Discussion

The proposed methods address the shortcomings of other analgesic studies. Although prior studies have tested short-term effects of single doses of pain medications, patients and their dentists are interested in managing pain for the entire post-operative period, not just the first 12 h. After surgery, patients expect to be able to perform normal daily functions without feeling nauseous or dizzy and they desire a restful sleep at night. Parents of young people are concerned with the risks of opioid use and misuse, related either to treatments received or to subsequent use of leftover pills. Upon successful completion of this clinical trial, dentists, patients, and their families will be better able to make informed decisions regarding post-operative pain management.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04452344. Registered on June 20, 2020

ANALGESIC EFFICACY OF TRAMADOL/DEXKETOPROFEN VS IBUPROFEN AFTER IMPACTED LOWER THIRD MOLAR EXTRACTION: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL

OBJECTIVE

Impacted third molar extraction is associated with acute moderate-to-severe pain for up to 48 hours post-surgery. This trial was designed to compare the analgesic effectiveness, swelling, and adverse events after impacted third molar surgery following multimodal therapy with 75 mg tramadol hydrochloride plus 25 mg dexketoprofen or monotherapy with 400 mg ibuprofen.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to receiving ibuprofen (n = 36) or tramadol-dexketoprofen (n = 36). Postoperative pain intensity and swelling were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS); pain relief experienced was reported using a 4-point verbal rating scale; the rescue medication requirement, adverse effects, and global impression of the medication were recorded.

RESULTS

No statistically significant between-group difference in pain intensity was observed at any time point; however, pain relief was significantly higher in the tramadol-dexketoprofen treated-group at 6 and 36 hours. Self-reported verbal rating scale assessments showed significantly lower swelling in the tramadol-dexketoprofen group at 24 hours post-surgery but not at 48 or 72 hours, and VAS-swelling scores showed no significant between-group difference. The frequency of postoperative nausea and dizziness was significantly higher in the tramadol-dexketoprofen group.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal therapy proved more effective to manage moderate-severe pain after impacted third molar surgery in comparison to monotherapy. However, the improvement in relief must be balanced against the increased risk of adverse effects when considering this multimodal approach.

Comparative Study between the Combination of Dexamethasone and Bupivacaine for Third Molar Surgery Postoperative Pain: A Triple-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: To compare the possible benefits of the combination of dexamethasone–bupivacaine with articaine–epinephrine as an anaesthetic block after third molar surgery. Materials and Methods: Triple-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel, phase 3 clinical trial. Two groups: experimental (93 patients) with standard anaesthetic block: 40/0.005 mg/mL articaine–epinephrine and submucosal reinforcement with 0.8 mg dexamethasone–5% bupivacaine; and control group (91 patients) with standard block: 40/0.005 mg/mL articaine–epinephrine. The surgery consisted of the extraction of the impacted mandibular third molar by performing a procedure following the same repeatable scheme. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to analyse postoperative pain. Results: Groups were homogeneous, without significant differences related to epidemiological variables. Postoperative pain among the first, second, and seventh postoperative days was statistically significantly lower in the experimental group compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Drug consumption was lower in the experimental group throughout the study period (p < 0.04). Conclusion: Bupivacaine is an alternative to articaine in oral surgery, being more effective in reducing postoperative pain by reducing patients’ scores on the VAS as well as their consumption of analgesic drugs after surgery.

Effectiveness of pre-operative oral corticosteroids in reducing pain, trismus and oedema following lower third molar extractions: a systematic review

Aim To determine if a single pre-operative dose of oral corticosteroids would be effective in reducing pain, trismus and oedema following lower third molar surgical extraction. Secondary outcomes of interest were post-operative complications such as infections.Methods Searching was conducted using Embase, Medline, DOSS, CINAHL and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials. Four studies which compared pre-operative oral corticosteroids to placebo before lower third molar surgical extractions were eligible for inclusion.Results All studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. All studies tested the efficacy of 8 mg dexamethasone 60-90 minutes before surgical extractions. While three studies showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in the dexamethasone groups, two were not statistically significant. One study found no improvement in pain scores on VAS. One study found no difference in either trismus or oedema. One study reported one occurrence of post-operative alveolar infection in the dexamethasone group and one occurrence of alveolar osteitis in the placebo group.Conclusion While there seems to be an improvement in pain scores on VAS, these results are not clinically significant. Post-operative analgesia plays a more important role clinically.

Preemptive use of intravenous ibuprofen to reduce postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

This study aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the effect of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain reduction after lower third molar surgery. Nine databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Open Gray, and Open Thesis) were used as sources of research, including "grey literature." The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Only randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain during and immediately after the extraction of lower third molars were included, without restrictions of year and language. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias. The "Joanna Briggs Institute for Randomized Controlled Trials" tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Each study was categorized according to the percentage of positive responses to the questions corresponding to the assessment instrument. The results were measured narratively/descriptively. The initial search resulted in 3,257 records, of which only three studies (n=150 participants) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. All studies were published in 2019. The risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Two studies found significant pain reduction within 48 h after the procedure. In conclusion, the use of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen for extracting third molars reduces pain and analgesic consumption after the surgical procedure.

Preemptive effects of ibuprofen and nimesulide on postoperative pain control after open flap periodontal surgeries: A randomized placebo-controlled split-mouth clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Data on preemptive analgesia in periodontal surgeries are scarce and still diverse. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the analgesic effects of the preemptive administration of ibuprofen and nimesulide in open flap periodontal surgeries.

METHODS

The present randomized controlled clinical trial comprised 40 individuals, divided into two groups (n = 20), according to the test drug (ibuprofen and nimesulide) to be administered 1 hour preoperatively. Participants underwent bilateral periodontal surgeries at two different times, and were randomly given the test drug or placebo in a split-mouth design. Postoperative pain and rescue medication were evaluated at different times. Comparisons between ibuprofen and nimesulide were performed through a Generalized Estimation Equation model, using test drug and evaluation times, along with an interaction between these two variables as predictors.

RESULTS

In intergroup comparisons regarding pain control, ibuprofen showed better effects than placebo only at the first postoperative hour, whereas nimesulide showed better effects than placebo at 1, 6, 24, and 48 postoperative hours. In intergroup comparisons, nimesulide showed better effects than ibuprofen at 24, 48, and 72 postoperative hours, demonstrating a higher overall preemptive effect. No differences were observed in relation to the number of rescue medication.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive administration of nimesulide showed better overall preemptive effects on postoperative pain control when compared with ibuprofen.

Photobiomodulation therapy reduces postoperative pain after third molar extractions: A randomized clinical trial

Background

To assess the efficacy of PBMT on reducing postoperative pain scores in patients submitted to third molar extractions.

Material and Methods

A randomized controlled trial (ReBEC:RBR-94BCKZ) was designed according to the SPIRIT and followed the CONSORT. Patients were randomly allocated according to control or PBMT groups. PBMT consisted of the application of GaAlAs laser (808nm;50mW) applied in six points (1.23 min;11 J/cm2) after extraction. Pain scores were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in millimeters evaluated after 6 (T6), 24 (T24), and 48 (T48) hours. The Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test was used to check for possible associations between VAS scores and treatment groups.

Results

A total of 101 third molar extractions were performed in 44 patients. The mean age was 28 years old(SD±11.54). Comparing control and intervention, PBMT group showed a significant effect on the reduction of postoperative pain at T6(mean VAS=0.9; C.I:0.63–1.16) compared to control (mean VAS=2.5;C.I:2.1–2.88)(p<0.001). The same statistically significant effect on the reduction of postoperative pain was observed at T24 (PBMT mean VAS=0.72;C.I:0.51–0.93; control mean VAS=2.86;C.I:2.40–3.31;p<0.001) and T48 (PBMT mean VAS=0.64;C.I:0.36–0.92; control mean VAS=2.86;C.I:2.37–3.34;p<0.001).

Conclusions

PBMT significantly reduce the postoperative pain scores when assessed 6, 24, and 48 hours after third molar extractions.

Key words:Controlled clinical trial, gallium aluminium arsenide lasers, third molar.

De-Implementing Opioid Use and Implementing Optimal Pain Management Following Dental Extractions (DIODE): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Overdose deaths from prescription opioid analgesics are a continuing crisis in the United States. Opioid analgesics are among the most frequently prescribed drugs by dentists. An estimated 5 million people undergo third-molar extractions in the United States each year, resulting in postoperative pain. Studies show that, in most cases, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is an effective alternative to commonly prescribed opioid analgesics for the management of postextraction pain. Nevertheless, many dentists routinely prescribe opioids after dental extractions.

Objective

We describe the rationale, design, and methods for a randomized trial of interventions designed to de-implement opioid prescribing by dentists while implementing effective nonopioid analgesics following dental extractions.

Methods

Using a prospective, 3-arm, cluster randomized trial design with dentists as the unit randomized and patient-level prescribing data as the primary outcome, we will compare different strategies to reduce the reliance on opioids and increase the use of alternative pain management approaches utilizing information support tools aimed at both providers and their patients. The study will test the efficacy of 2 interventions to decrease opioid prescribing following dental extractions: clinical decision support with (CDS-E) and without patient education (CDS). Providers will be randomized to CDS, CDS-E, or standard practice. Patient-level outcomes will be determined via review of comprehensive electronic health records. We will compare study arms on differential change in prescribing patterns from pre- to postimplementation of the intervention. The primary outcome of interest is a binary indicator of whether or not the patient received an opioid prescription on the day of the extraction encounter. We will also examine recommendations or prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics, patients’ perceptions of shared decision making, and patients’ pain experiences following the extraction.

Results

The HealthPartners Institutional Review Board approved the study. All study materials including the CDS and patient education materials have been developed and pilot tested, and the protocol has been approved by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The intervention was implemented in February 2020, with 51 dentists who were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms.

Conclusions

If the intervention strategies are shown to be effective, they could be implemented more broadly in dental settings with high levels of opioid prescribing.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03584789

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/24342

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Postoperative pain and edema control following different protocols of preemptive analgesia in the surgical removal of impacted third molars: A triple-blind parallel randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

This randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the preemptive effects of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, nimesulide or dexamethasone on postoperative pain and edema in the surgical removal of impacted third molars. Participants underwent bilateral surgeries at 2 different times and were randomly given the test drug or placebo (split-mouth). Postoperative pain, edema and rescue medication were evaluated at different times. Study power was >80% for the observed effect size in the crossover repeated measures design. Differences between test drug and placebo were the response variable. Generalized Estimation Equation models were adjusted for each outcome. Sample comprised 5 groups (n = 20 each). Ibuprofen and nimesulide showed higher overall effects on pain scores over time, with no differences between them (p = 0.557). Acetaminophen showed significantly lower overall effects in edema control over time, when compared to other test drugs, that showed similar effects. Lower quantity of rescue medication were also observed for ibuprofen and nimesulide, with no differences between them (p = 0.999). Ibuprofen and nimesulide showed beneficial overall preemptive effects. Hence, in the decision-making process for preemptive analgesia in impacted third molar surgeries, ibuprofen and nimesulide should be considered on a case-by-case basis as the drugs of choice.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ibuprofen Lysinate in Comparison to Ibuprofen Acid for Acute Postoperative Dental Pain

INTRODUCTION

Ibuprofen acid is poorly soluble in the stomach, thus reaching maximum plasma levels at approximately 90 min post-dose. Ibuprofen lysinate has been developed to accelerate absorption of ibuprofen to shorten the time to analgesic efficacy. This study compared analgesic efficacy and onset of effect of a single dose of ibuprofen lysinate or ibuprofen acid in patients undergoing third molar extraction.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, parallel-group single-dose study. Adults (18-60 years) undergoing extraction of ≥ 1 third molar were randomized 2:2:1 to ibuprofen lysinate, ibuprofen acid, or placebo postoperatively. Pain relief (PAR, 5-point scale, 0 = none to 4 = complete pain relief) and pain intensity (PI, 100 mm visual analog scale) were assessed between 15 and 360 min post-dose. The primary endpoint was the weighted sum of PAR scores at 6 h (TOTPAR). Time to onset of effect, global assessment of efficacy, and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 351 patients received ibuprofen lysinate (N = 141), ibuprofen acid (N = 139), or placebo (N = 71). Both active treatments significantly reduced pain compared with placebo, from 15 min post-dose to 6 h (TOTPAR: ibuprofen lysinate: 19.57; ibuprofen acid: 19.96; placebo: 8.27). Ibuprofen lysinate was significantly more effective than placebo, but non-inferior to ibuprofen acid, at providing pain relief over 6 h. There was no significant difference between ibuprofen lysinate and ibuprofen acid for onset of analgesia. Both ibuprofen formulations were well tolerated; all adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of ibuprofen lysinate is non-inferior to ibuprofen acid in terms of analgesic efficacy, onset of action, and tolerability in patients who have recently undergone dental surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT No. 2006-006942-33. Plain language summary available for this article.

RT-qPCR study of COX-1 and -2 genes in oral surgical model comparing single-dose preemptive ibuprofen and etoricoxib: A randomized clinical trialy

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the gene expression of cyclooxygenases (COXs) in an oral model of preemptive analgesia.

Material and Methods

Gingival tissue was collected during extraction of lower third molars from a randomized, triple-blind, split-mouth and placebo-controlled study. The eligible patients were randomly sorted to receive a single dose either of ibuprofen 400mg, or etoricoxib 120 mg or a placebo, one hour prior to surgery. The temporal course of RNAm was evaluated for COX-1 and -2 by means of a quantitative polymerase chain reaction in real time (RT-qPCR) at time zero and 30 minutes after the surgical procedure began, and it was correlated with clinical parameters (pain and maximum mouth opening).

Results

There was a significant increase in COX-1 expression between T0 and T30 in ibuprofen (p=0.004) and etoricoxib (p=0.010) groups. As regards COX-2, there were increases from T0 to T30 in all groups (placebo, p=0.012; ibuprofen, p<0.001; etoricoxib, p<0.001). All groups showed a significant decrease in COX-2:COX-1 ratio from T0 to T30 (placebo, p=0.013; ibuprofen, p<0.001; etoricoxib, p=0.047). Experimental groups showed a significant correlation between COX-1 and COX-2 levels and clinical pain parameters.

Conclusions

The present preemptive analgesia study concludes that COX-2 RNAm induction was directly linked to third molar-related tissue inflammation and that the relation between COX-1 and COX-2 levels were inversely proportional to the preemptively administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs COX-2 selectivity.

Key words:Preemptive analgesia, dental extraction, cyclooxygenases, real-time polymerase chain reaction.

Expert Consensus on Clinical Use of an Orally Administered Dexketoprofen Plus Tramadol Fixed-Dose Combination in Moderate-To-Severe Acute Pain: A Delphi Study

Introduction

In 2016, the orally administered fixed-dose combination of dexketoprofen 25 mg and tramadol 75 mg (DKP/TRAM FDC) was approved in Europe for short-term treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain, an indication that encompasses a wide range of post-operative and non-surgical painful conditions. This has suggested the necessity to have a clearer indication on its clinical use, with the support of expert pain clinicians, working in different medical specialities, and reinforced by the data present in the literature.

Methods

With the aim of assisting clinicians in the use of DKP/TRAM FDC in daily practice, two rounds of a modified Delphi process were conducted. In the first round, a board of nine experts developed a series of consensus statements based on available evidence, and their clinical experience, with DKP/TRAM FDC. In the second round, 75 clinicians with extensive experience in pain management expressed individually their agreement with the statements, using a dedicated online platform. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement.

Results

Twenty-eight statements were developed. Of these, 19 reached the defined level of consensus.

Conclusion

The agreed consensus statements may assist clinicians in applying the results of clinical studies and clinical experience to routine care settings, providing guidance for use of this new analgesic combination in moderate-to-severe post-operative and non-surgical acute pain.

Funding

Menarini Group.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01096-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of a drug composed of herbal extracts on postoperative discomfort after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a randomized, triple-blind, controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of a phytotherapeutic drug composed of herbal extracts on postsurgical discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-two patients requiring the surgical removal of a mandibular third molar were randomly assigned to receive placebo (group 1), ibuprofen (group 2), and a phytotherapeutic drug (composed of baicalin, 190 mg; bromelain, 50 mg; escin, 30 mg) (group 3). Drugs were administered after tooth extraction twice a day for 5 days. The primary outcome, pain, was evaluated using a visual analogue scale at 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 and 10 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the changes in maximum mouth opening and facial contours (mm) between baseline and at 24 h, 72 h, and 7 and 10 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Compared to the baseline, all treatments demonstrated an improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. Moreover, compared to groups 1 and 2, patients in group 3 yielded a significant reduction of the postoperative pain score at 12 h (p < 0.001), 24 h (p = 0.010), and 48 h (p = 0.048) after surgery. The mean reduction of the swelling and trismus was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that a postoperative administration of a phytotherapeutic drug was found to be effective in postoperative pain management after the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The phytotherapeutic drug composed of herbal extract determined a decrease in the severity of postoperative pain compared to ibuprofen and placebo.

Therapeutic efficacy of cryotherapy on facial swelling, pain, trismus and quality of life after surgical removal of mandibular third molars: A systematic review

The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in facial swelling, pain, trismus and immediate quality of life after surgical removal of mandibular third molars, with or without post-operative cryotherapy. A MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE database and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand search of relevant journals were conducted by including human randomised controlled trials published in English until 17 July 2018. The search identified 37 titles. Six studies with low or unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Intermittent cryotherapy for 30 minutes during the first post-operative days significantly diminished facial swelling, pain and trismus compared with no cryotherapy. Patient's satisfaction and perception of recovery were significantly increased with cryotherapy. Therapeutic efficacy of intermittent cryotherapy on post-operative facial swelling, pain and trismus seems to be improved compared with continuous cryotherapy. Considerable variations in study design, diversity of used evaluation methods, outcome measures and various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions to review the literature in a quantitative systematic manner. Thus, conclusions drawn from the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials including standardised protocol, larger patient sample, blinded outcome assessors, patient-reported outcome measures and three-dimensional volumetric analysis of facial swelling are required before evidence-based recommendations can be provided.

Comparative Efficacy of Therapeutics for Chronic Cancer Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Opioids are the primary choice for managing chronic cancer pain. However, many nonopioid therapies are currently prescribed for chronic cancer pain with little published evidence comparing their efficacy.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any systemic pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination thereof in treating chronic cancer pain. The primary outcome was global efficacy reported as an odds ratio (OR). The secondary outcome was change in pain intensity reported as a standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs consisting of 10,003 patients investigating 11 medication classes. Most RCTs (80%) displayed low risk of bias. The top-ranking classes for global efficacy were nonopioid analgesics (network OR, 0.30; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.13 to 0.67), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (network OR, 0.44; 95% CrI, 0.22 to 0.90), and opioids (network OR, 0.49; 95% CrI, 0.27 to 0.86), whereas the top-ranked interventions were lidocaine (network OR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.01 to 0.18; surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis [SUCRA] score, 98.1), codeine plus aspirin (network OR, 0.22; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.63; SUCRA score, 81.1), and pregabalin (network OR, 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.92; SUCRA score, 73.8). In terms of reducing pain intensity, we found that no class was superior to placebo, whereas the following top-ranked interventions were superior to placebo: ziconotide (network SMD, −24.98; 95% CrI, −32.62 to −17.35; SUCRA score, 99.8), dezocine (network SMD, −13.56; 95% CrI, −23.37 to −3.69; SUCRA score, 93.5), and diclofenac (network SMD, −11.22; 95% CrI, −15.91 to −5.80; SUCRA score, 92.9).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in efficacy among current regimens for chronic cancer pain. Our evidence suggests that certain nonopioid analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can serve as effectively as opioids in managing chronic cancer pain.

Efficacy of proteolytic enzyme bromelain on health outcomes after third molar surgery. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Bromelain is a cysteine protease isolated from pineapple with a range of biological properties including platelet aggregation inhibition and anti-inflammatory effects. Recent studies have evaluated the clinical implications of bromelain in reducing postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery, but the results are contrasting. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of bromelain on health outcomes in patients submitted to third molar surgery.

Material and Methods

The study was conducted following the PRISMA statement. Searches were conducted in six electronic databases and Google Scholar from inception to May 2018. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) population: patients undergoing third molar surgery; (2) intervention and controls: bromelain vs placebo or no-treatment control group; (3) outcomes: quality of life, postoperative pain, rescue analgesic consumption, facial swelling, and trismus; and (4) study type: randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were defined as weighted (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95%CIs.

Results

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was large effect size of bromelain on improving physical appearance (SMD -0.77, CI% 95 -1.11 to -0.42), social isolation (SMD -0.97, CI% 95 -1.74 to -0.21), and sleep quality (SMD -1.19, CI% 95 -1.97 to -0.40) during the first postoperative week. Differences in pain intensity were found during the first 24h (SMD -0.49, CI 95% -0.82 to -0.17) and 7 days after surgery (SMD -0.52, CI 95% -0.79 to -0.24). No evidence was found that bromelain was effective in reducing trismus and facial swelling.

Conclusions

The currently available evidence suggests that bromelain has a beneficial effect in reducing pain and has a positive impact on patient quality of life after third molar surgery. However, therapeutic advances for the use of bromelain need a high level of evidence and further head-to-head RCTs are needed to inform clinical choices.

Key words:Bromelain, third molar, oral surgical procedures.

Analgesic efficacy of ketorolac associated with a tramadol/acetaminophen combination after third molar surgery - a randomized, triple-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study compared the efficacy of ketorolac alone versus its combination with tramadol/acetaminophen for pain control after mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized, triple-blind clinical trial was carried out with 52 patients divided into 2 groups: Group K+T+A (1 tablet of Ketorolac 10 mg plus and 1 capsule of Tramadol 37.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg) and Group K (1 tablet of Ketorolac 10 mg plus and 1 placebo capsule). The treatments were given 1 h before the surgery and was repeated 4 times per day, for 48 h. The difference in postoperative pain was assessed by 4 primary end-points: pain intensity (VAS 100mm, for 48 h), rescue medication, overall assessment and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Significant differences in pain intensity were observed in the different times (p < 0.05). The comparison of groups in each time showed significant differences only of 9 h, with lower level of pain intensity for group K+T+A (p = 0.005). The need of analgesics was higher in Group K (p < 0.001), the need of antiemetic were greater in Group K+T+A (p < 0.0001). No significant difference between groups were observed in overall assessment. The adverse effects was higher in Group K+T+A.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that both ketorolac and the combination of ketorolac plus tramadol/acetaminophen showed good control of pain after the extraction of the lower third molars. Although the combination group showed lower pain at 9 h, the difference is small and not clinically relevant.

The effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol on postoperative pain after third molar surgery: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with propofol may reduce pain after surgery compared with inhalational anaesthetic techniques. Whether propofol provides analgesic benefit may be influenced by the surgical procedure and anaesthetic/analgesic regime. Third molar surgery is a consistent and fairly standard surgical technique that provides a good model for postoperative pain. We investigated whether propofol TIVA or sevoflurane (SEVO) inhalational anaesthesia would produce better quality pain relief after third molar surgery.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bilateral third molar surgery received propofol TIVA or SEVO inhalational anaesthesia. Postoperative numerical rating pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects and global pain satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 48 patients in each group were analysed. The area under curves for numerical rating scale pain scores were significantly lower in the propofol TIVA group at rest and during mouth opening between 1 and 72 hr after surgery (p = 0.013 at rest, p = 0.021 with mouth opening). There was no difference in postoperative analgesic consumption. Propofol TIVA was associated with less postoperative headache (p = 0.041 in the postoperative anaesthetic care unit, p = 0.036 in ward). There were no differences in other adverse effects including postoperative nausea and vomiting. Global pain satisfaction and level of postoperative discomfort at 24 hr after surgery were significantly better in the propofol TIVA group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.009, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA was associated with reduced postoperative pain after bilateral third molar surgery, but did not reduce postoperative analgesic consumption.

SIGNIFICANCE

Choice of general anaesthetic technique can affect postoperative analgesia. The results of this study suggest that propofol TIVA improves postoperative pain and patient satisfaction after third molar surgery compared to inhalational anaesthesia.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Use in Third Molar Impaction Surgery: INNOVATE Study

The analgesic efficacy and safety of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) in third molar extraction was evaluated in this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of subjects undergoing bilateral third molar extraction. Subjects were randomized 2 : 1 to infiltration with LB (133 mg/10 mL) or placebo, and received opioid rescue medication as needed. Primary efficacy measure was cumulative area under the curve (AUC) of numeric rating scale (NRS) pain severity scores through 48 hours (AUC of NRS_0-48) postsurgery. Other measures included AUC of NRS_0-24, AUC of NRS_0-72, and AUC of NRS_0-96, and incidence of adverse events. There were 150 subjects in the primary efficacy population (n = 99 LB, n = 51 placebo) and 89 in the per-protocol population (n = 59 LB, n = 30 placebo). Least-squares mean for AUC of NRS_0-48 was 172.3 LB versus 194.7 placebo (P = .227) in the primary efficacy population and 120.8 LB versus 183.3 placebo (P = .023) in the per-protocol population. At all time points, between-group differences in AUC of NRS scores were significant in the per-protocol population (LB lower than placebo, P < .05) but not in the primary efficacy population. The adverse event profile was similar between groups. LB produced significantly lower cumulative pain scores versus placebo at all time points in the per-protocol analysis but not in the primary efficacy analysis because of protocol violations. This study indicates significant improvement in pain scores in the third molar model, but because of extensive protocol violations additional studies are warranted to demonstrate effectiveness.

A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial of Intravenous Meloxicam in the Treatment of Pain Following Dental Impaction Surgery

This randomized, controlled phase 2 study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of single intravenous (IV) doses of 15 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg meloxicam compared with oral ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo after dental impaction surgery. The primary efficacy end point was the sum of time‐weighted pain intensity differences for 0‐24 hours postdose. Among 230 evaluable subjects, meloxicam IV 60 mg produced the greatest reduction in pain, followed by the 30‐mg and 15‐mg doses. Statistically significant differences in summed pain intensity differences over 24 hours were demonstrated for each active‐treatment group vs placebo (favoring active treatment) and for meloxicam IV 30 mg and 60 mg vs ibuprofen 400 mg (favoring meloxicam IV). Moreover, there was a statistically significant dose response for meloxicam IV 15 mg to 60 mg. The onset of action for meloxicam IV was rapid and sustained; significant differences in pain intensity differences were detected as early as 10 minutes postdose and lasted through the 24‐hour postdose period. Subjects in the meloxicam IV groups were more likely than placebo recipients to achieve perceptible and meaningful pain relief and were less likely to use rescue medication. Patient‐reported global evaluation showed that meloxicam IV 60 mg had the highest rating. There were no deaths, serious adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events. The incidence of subjects with ≥1 treatment‐emergent adverse event was greatest in the placebo group, followed by the groups that received ibuprofen, meloxicam IV 15 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg. Nausea was the most commonly reported treatment‐emergent adverse event. Clinical trial registration number: NCT00945763.

Use of antidepressants in dentistry: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Previous research has suggested that antidepressants can be used in oral health care. The aim of this systematic review was to search for scientific evidence of the efficacy of the use of antidepressants in dentistry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical question was as follows (PICO question): dentistry patients (Patients); antidepressants (Intervention); no use or placebo or other drug (Comparison); and efficacy in oral health problems (Outcome). An electronic search was conducted in seven databases, as well as a manual search without restriction regarding language and date of publication. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed methodological quality based on the PEDro scale. The PROSPERO record is number CRD42016037442.

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were associated with the use of antidepressants to control chronic or acute pain in dentistry, among other conditions such as bruxism and burning mouth syndrome. The most commonly used drug in clinical trials was amitriptyline (more than 50% of studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants may be effective in dentistry for acute and chronic pain, but there is a large amount of methodological heterogeneity among the evaluated studies. In summary, there is rationality for the indication of this class of medicine in dentistry in specific clinical situations.

Efficacy of Preoperative Administration of Paracetamol-Codeine on Pain following Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of preoperative administration of single-dose of paracetamol-codeine, in the relieving of acute postoperative pain after the surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. Materials and Methods. The study cohort consisted of 32 Caucasian outpatients, giving a total of 64 bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibles. Patients were randomized in two experimental groups to receive a preoperative oral dose of paracetamol-codeine (analgesic group) or a placebo (placebo group) at the first and second surgeries. Study participants were asked to record pain intensity scores during the operation and the next 2 days, the time of the first request for rescue analgesic, and the total number of postoperative-supplement paracetamol-codeine tablets. Results. The pain intensity score on the first day was significantly lower in the analgesic group than in the placebo group (p < 0.001). The time to using rescue therapy was significantly longer in the analgesic group than in the placebo group (p = 0.004). The number of paracetamol-codeine tablets used postoperatively did not differ between the analgesic and placebo groups (p = 0.104). Conclusions. Preoperative paracetamol-codeine is effective in providing immediate postoperative pain control after third molar surgery and in delaying the initial onset of pain. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (Registration Number): NCT03049878.

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of oral ketorolac versus intramuscular tramadol after third molar surgery: A parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Preemptive analgesia is considered an alternative for treating the postsurgical pain of third molar removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preemptive analgesic efficacy of oral ketorolac versus intramuscular tramadol after a mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was carried out. Thirty patients were randomized into two treatment groups using a series of random numbers: Group A, oral ketorolac 10 mg plus intramuscular placebo (1 mL saline solution); or Group B, oral placebo (similar tablet to oral ketorolac) plus intramuscular tramadol 50 mg diluted in 1 mL saline solution. These treatments were given 30 min before the surgery. We evaluated the time of first analgesic rescue medication, pain intensity, total analgesic consumption and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Patients taking oral ketorolac had longer time of analgesic covering and less postoperative pain when compared with patients receiving intramuscular tramadol.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the VAS and UAC results, this study suggests that 10 mg of oral ketorolac had superior analgesic effect than 50 mg of tramadol when administered before a mandibular third molar surgery.

Comparison Between Dexamethasone and Ibuprofen for Postoperative Pain Prevention and Control After Surgical Implant Placement: A Double-Masked, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is a potential adverse side effect of oral surgeries, and attempts should be made to prevent or minimize it. This study compares efficacy of preemptive ibuprofen and dexamethasone protocols for pain prevention or control after surgical implant placement.

METHODS

This prospective, double-masked, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial included 117 patients with planned dental implant placement. Patients were assigned to receive one of three different protocols: 1) 600 mg ibuprofen 1 hour before surgery and another 600 mg 6 hours after the first dose; 2) 4 mg dexamethasone 1 hour before surgery and another 4 mg 6 hours after the first dose; or 3) placebo. Rescue medication (1,000 mg acetaminophen) was made available to each patient, and they were instructed to take it as necessary. Pain intensity was evaluated via a 101-point numeric rating scale and a visual analog scale, and discomfort was evaluated using a four-point verbal rating scale hourly for the first 8 hours after surgery and three times daily for the following 3 days.

RESULTS

Ibuprofen and dexamethasone significantly reduced pain (Kruskal-Wallis; P <0.05) up to 3 days after surgery and discomfort (P <0.05) up to 2 days after surgery compared with placebo treatment. Both treatments reduced the number of painkillers taken and increased time before the first painkiller was taken (P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Steroidal dexamethasone is as effective as non-steroidal ibuprofen for preventing or controlling postoperative pain and discomfort after surgical implant placement.

New quantitative classification of the anatomical relationship between impacted third molars and the inferior alveolar nerve

BACKGROUND

Before extracting impacted lower third molars, dentists must first identify the spatial relationship between the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and an impacted lower third molar to prevent nerve injury from the extraction. Nevertheless, the current method for describing the spatial relationship between the IAN and an impacted lower third molar is deficient. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (1) evaluate the relative position between impacted lower third molars and the IAN; and (2) investigate the relative position between impacted lower third molars and the IAN by using a cylindrical coordinate system.

METHODS

From the radiology department's database, we selected computed tomography images of 137 lower third molars (from 75 patients) requiring removal and applied a Cartesian coordinate system by using Mimics, a medical imaging software application, to measure the distribution between impacted mandibular third molars and the IAN. In addition, the orientation of the lower third molar to the IAN was also measured, but by using a cylindrical coordinate system with the IAN as the origin.

RESULTS

According to the Cartesian coordinate system, most of the IAN runs through the inferior side of the third molar (78.6 %), followed by the lingual side (11.8 %), and the buccal side (8.9 %); only 0.7 % is positioned between the roots. Unlike the Cartesian coordinate system, the cylindrical coordinate system clearly identified the relative position, r and θ, between the IAN and lower third molar.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the cylindrical coordinate system to present the relationship between the IAN and lower third molar as (r, θ) might provide clinical practitioners with a more explicit and objective description of the relative position of both sites. However, comprehensive research and cautious application of this system remain necessary.