[Assessment of the effectiveness of low level laser in the treatment of alveolar osteitis]

Photobiomodulation for Managing "Dry Socket": A Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

There are no studies that have evaluated the effect of Alveogyl with and without adjunct photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in reducing self-rated post-operative pain (SPP) in patients with alveolar osteitis (AO; dry socket). The aim of the present randomised controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of Alveogyl with and without PBMT for the management of SPP in patients with AO.

METHODS

Adult nonsmokers with diagnosed AO were included. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups. In Group 1, patients underwent mechanical curettage (MC) with copious normal saline irrigation. In Group 2, patients underwent MC + Alveogyl dressings in extraction sites which were changed every 48 hours until cessation of pain. In Group 3, patients underwent MC + Alveogyl followed by PBMT using a 660-nm indium-gallium-aluminum-phosphide diode laser. In Group 4, patients were treated solely with PBMT. The visual analogue scale was used up to 3 postoperative days to assess SPP up to 3 days at 6- (T0) and 12-hour (T1) intervals. Statistical analyses were performed using the analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc adjustment tests. Correlation between SPP scores and age, sex, and eruption status of teeth was assessed using logistic regression models. P values <.01 were nominated as being statistically significant.

RESULTS

In all, 14, 13, 14, and 14 individuals with AO were included in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. All patients had undergone extraction of mandibular third molars. At baseline and on day 1, there was no difference in SPP in all groups. On days 2 and 3, mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at T1 (P < .01) and T2 (P < .01) intervals were significantly high in Group 2 compared with Group 3. On days 2 and 3, mean VAS scores at T1 (P < .01) and T2 (P < .01) intervals were significantly high in Group 4 compared with Group 3. There was no difference in SPP in groups 3 and 4 on day 3 at T0 and T1 intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

PBMT following MC and Alveogyl dressing is more efficient in reducing SPP compared with MC with or without Alveogyl dressing in patients with AO.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket)

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively.  Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket  Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.

The effects of photobiomodulation therapy for treatment of alveolar osteitis (Dry Socket): Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dry socket (alveolar osteitis) is one of the most common complications that occur after the extraction of permanent teeth. The aim of this review was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of photobiomodulation (PBT) with other treatment methods on alveolar osteitis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane's CENTRAL online databases were searched based on the search strategy. Also, the prominent laser journals and the references of relevant studies were hand searched for eligible studies and then the data were extracted from the retrieved studies were extracted using piloted custom forms. The data were combined and analyzed using inverse-variance random-effect meta-analysis.

RESULTS

For the treatment of dry socket, pain perception based on the VAS score, PBT on average has a 3.41 higher pain level reduction compared to alveogyl which seems to be both statistically and clinically significant. In addition, based on the GRADE score, the evidence seems to be of moderate quality. Also, in the individual studies which were included in this systematic review, PBT seems to be more effective than other methods (Salicept, zinc-oxide eugenol, ozone, and photodynamic therapy) in pain reduction of patients with alveolar osteitis.

CONCLUSIONS

PBT, in general, has a higher ability in decreasing pain levels for patients with alveolar osteitis (dry socket) compared to alveogyl. Therefore, PBT could be used as an appropriate method for treatment and controlling the signs of dry socket.

The Efficacy of Concentrated Growth Factor in the Healing of Alveolar Osteitis: A Clinical Study

Background

A dry socket also referred to as alveolar osteitis (AO) is a common postoperative complication following tooth extraction, due to the disruption of the clot within the wound. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of concentrated growth factor (CGF) in the healing of alveolar osteitis following tooth extraction.

Methods

The study was conducted at University Dental Hospital Sharjah, UAE. Patients undergoing tooth extraction at the oral surgery clinic were advised to return immediately if they suffer from pain. Over the following first week after tooth extraction, patients who reported pain symptoms were recalled and all dry sockets were identified. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I patients received conventional treatment with socket curettage and saline irrigation only, while in group II CGF was inserted into the socket. Both groups were observed for pain score and quantification of granulation tissue formation.

Results

A total of 40 dry socket patients, aged between 18 and 60 years, from a total of 1,250 patients, were included in the study. 30 patients were given conventional treatment while another 10 patients were given CGF. Patients who received CGF had a pain score of 7-10 at presentation, and the pain score dropped to 0-3 on day 4 and further improved to 0-1 on day 7 (p = 0.001). Granulation tissue formation appeared in the conventional group I on day 7 while the CGF group II showed earlier granulation tissue formation by day 4 (p = 0.001). The posttreatment pain score is inversely proportional to the amount and rate of granulation tissue formation in the socket.

Conclusion

The study suggests that delivery of CGF into a dry socket helps relieve pain and expedite the wound healing process as shown by a statistically much lower pain score and earlier and more rapid formation of granulation tissue when compared to the conventional alveolar osteitis therapy.

Effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin in the management of pain and delayed wound healing associated with established alveolar osteitis (dry socket)

Objective:

To assess the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on the pain and healing of the extraction socket related with established alveolar osteitis (dry socket, AO) after the removal of maxillary and mandibular molars.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred consecutive adult patients with age group ranging from 18 to 40 years along with established dry socket after maxillary and mandibular molar extractions who have not received any treatment for the same were included in this single-arm clinical trial. PRF was placed in the maxillary and mandibular molar extraction sockets after adequate irrigation of the socket. All the patients evaluated for the various study variables which include pain, degree of inflammation, and healthy granulation tissue formation (wound healing) at the 1^st, 3^rd, 7^th, and 14^th post-PRF placement day in the alveolar socket. Data were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk's test, Chi-square test and/or Student's t-test, Friedman's test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Bonferroni test, with the significance level set at P < 0.05.

Results:

There was significant reduction in pain associated with AO at the 3^rd and 7^th post-PRF placement day in the extraction socket along with mark decrease in the degree of inflammation at the 3^rd post-PRF placement day, and there was better wound healing by the end of the 2^nd week.

Conclusion:

The use of PRF in this clinical trial illustrates the promising results in terms of reduced pain and better healing in the patients with sustained AO.

Versatility of platelet rich fibrin in the management of alveolar osteitis-A clinical and prospective study

Objective

To assess the efficacy of Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) on the pain and healing of the extraction socket associated with Alveolar Osteitis (Dry Socket, AO) after removal of maxillary and mandibular molars.

Study design

100 adult patients with age group ranging from 18 to 40 years along with established dry socket after maxillary and mandibular molar extractions who have not received any treatment for the same were included in the study. PRF was placed in the maxillary and mandibular molar extraction sockets after adequate irrigation of the socket. All the patients evaluated for the various study variables which include pain, degree of inflammation, and healthy granulation tissue formation at 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 14th post operative day. Data were analyzed using Shapirowilk's test, chi square test and/or student-t test, Friedman's test, Wilcoxson's signed rank test, and Bonferroni test, with the significance level set at P < 0.05.

Results

There was significant reduction in pain associated with AO at the 3rd and 7th postoperative day along with better wound healing by the end of 2nd week.

Conclusion

Use of PRF in this study illustrates the promising results in terms of reduced pain and better healing in the patients with Alveolar Osteitits.

Platelet rich fibrin in the management of established dry socket

OBJECTIVES

Dry socket may occur secondary to the removal of any tooth. However, most dry socket cases develop in the third molar region. Dry socket is multifactorial in nature and has been treated using various modalities with varying success rates. This study assessed the efficacy of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in established dry socket.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients of either sex aged from 41 to 64 years with established dry socket according to established criteria were treated using PRF. Evaluation was performed by observing the reduction of pain using visual analogue scale, analgesic tablet use over the follow-up period, and healing parameters.

RESULTS

Pain was reduced on the first day in all patients with decreased analgesic use. Pain was drastically reduced during follow-up on the first, second, third, and seventh days with a fall in pain score of 0 to 1 after the first day alone. The pain scores of all patients decreased to 1 by the first day except in one patient, and the scores decreased to 0 in all patients after 48 hours. Total analgesic intake ranged from 2 to 6 tablets (aceclofenac 100 mg per tablet) over the follow-up period of 7 days. Healing was satisfactory in all patients by the end of the seventh day.

CONCLUSION

PRF showed early pain reduction in established dry socket with minimal analgesic intake. No patients had allergic reactions to PRF as it is derived from the patient's own blood. PRF showed good wound healing. Our study suggests that PRF should be considered as a treatment modality for established dry socket.

The efficacy of intra-alveolar 0.2% chlorhexidine gel on alveolar osteitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel in preventing alveolar osteitis following mandibular third molar extraction(s).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct and the references of identified articles were searched for relevant studies that met our eligibility criteria. Treatment effects were combined by meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software.

RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this meta-analysis. Compared to the control, 0.2% chlorhexidine gel reduced the risk of alveolar osteitis by 62% (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.53, P < 0.00001) following mandibular third molar extraction(s). The subgroup analysis results indicated that 0.2% chlorhexidine gel reduced the risk of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction(s) by 75% (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.11-0.58) and 56% (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.63) compared to no treatment and placebo, respectively. However, the occurrence of alveolar osteitis following mandibular third molar extraction(s) was not significantly different between 0.2% chlorhexidine gel and 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash (RR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.06-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The results showed that 0.2% chlorhexidine gel was effective in preventing alveolar osteitis after lower third molar extraction(s).

Comparison of the effect of low level laser therapy with alvogyl on the management of alveolar osteitis

Background

This study investigated the efficacy of low level laser therapy (LLLT) for managing alveolar osteitis (AO).

Material and Methods

Sixty patients with alveolar osteitis of mandibular third molars were randomly divided into three groups. In group 1, socket irrigation was followed by alvogyl placement, and the treatment was repeated 48 hours later. In group 2, socket was irradiated with a low power red laser for 3 consecutive days (200 mW, 30 seconds on each of the buccal and lingual surfaces and 30 seconds at the middle of the socket, 6 J per area). The subjects in group 3 underwent treatment with a low power infrared laser with the same parameters as group 2. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to record the degree of pain at the morning (T0, before intervention) and at 6 (T1) and 12 (T2) hours later for 3 days.

Results

Pain was significantly lower in the alvogyl group than the other groups at T1 and T2 points on day 1 and at T0 and T1 points on day 2 (p<0.05). At T2 point on day 2 and on day 3, VAS became significantly lower in the red laser group compared to the other groups (p<0.05). The infrared laser was not more efficacious than the other groups at any of the treatment intervals, but it reduced VAS to an acceptable level.

Conclusions

LLLT displayed good results in this study for treatment of alveolar osteitis and should be further investigated as an alternative to alvogyl for AO management.

Key words: Low level laser, low power laser, therapy, alvogyl, dry socket, alveolar osteitis, mandibular third molar.

Systemic review of dry socket: aetiology, treatment, and prevention

Our systemic review is to make a comprehensive review about the aetiology, treatment and the prevention of dry socket, the inclusion criteria were all the studies that discuss the dry socket and its etiology, treatment and prevention and exclusion criteria were all the studies that discuss the other complications of tooth extraction, the materials and methods used for this systemic review was to search in the Pub Medline database between 2008 to 2013, using specific words "dry socket, aetiology, treatment and prevention" and published in the English language, the articles were screened by abstract for relevance to aetiology, treatment and prevention of dry socket, 82 papers were identified in pub med but a total of 36 out of Publications were included in the final systemic review according to the specific keywords and materials mentioned above. The occurrence of dry socket in an everyday oral surgery or dental practice is unavoidable. The risk factors are smoking, surgical trauma, single extractions, age, sex, medical history, systemic disorder, extraction site, amount of anaesthesia, operator experience, antibiotics use prior to surgery, difficulty of the surgery and the previous surgical site infection in addition to oral Contraceptives, menstrual cycle and immediate postextraction socket irrigation with normal saline. The traditional options of treatment are directed toward palliative care, such as the irrigation of the surgical site, avoiding curetting the extraction socket, Packing with a zinc oxide- eugenol paste on iodoform gauze can be considered to relieve acute pain episodes, there is also new agents in the market can accelerate the healing of the socket such as PRGF and GECB. The prevention methods include avoiding smoking before and after surgery and a traumatic surgery, the use of antibiotics, such as, azithromycin, can be considered, the other preventive measures such as chlorhecidine rinse or gel can be effective in the reduction of dry socket incidence.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket)

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions and occurs more commonly in extractions involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of blood clot and in some patients there may be a complaint of halitosis. It can result in an increase in postoperative visits.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of local interventions for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 29 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 29 October 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 29 October 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted experts and organisations to identify any further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket post-extraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques for the management of dry socket because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently undertook risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate for included studies using pre-designed proformas. Any reports of adverse events were recorded and summarised into a table when these were available. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We followed The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio instead. We used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials with 2570 participants met the inclusion criteria; 18 trials with 2376 participants for the prevention of dry socket and three studies with 194 participants for the treatment of dry socket. The risk of bias assessment identified six studies at high risk of bias, 14 studies at unclear risk of bias and one studies at low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and after extraction(s) prevented approximately 42% of dry socket(s) with a RR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; P < 0.001) (four trials, 750 participants, moderate quality of evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varied from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated with (0.12% and 0.2%) chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket (NNT) was 232 (95% CI 176 to 417), 47 (95% CI 35 to 84) and 8 (95% CI 6 to 14) for control prevalences of dry socket of 1%, 5% and 30% respectively.Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) after extractions prevented approximately 58% of dry socket(s) with a RR of 0.42 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.87; P = 0.02) (two trials, in 133 participants, moderate quality of evidence). The number of patients needed to be treated with chlorhexidine gel to prevent one patient having dry socket (NNT) was 173 (95% CI 127 to 770), 35 (95% CI 25 to 154) and 6 (95% CI 5 to 26) for control prevalences of dry socket of 1%, 5% and 30% respectively.A further 10 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and therefore there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Five interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in a total of three studies providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most tooth extractions are undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but three studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is some evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, provides a benefit in preventing dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 10 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any of the interventions to treat dry socket. The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% and 2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses, though most studies were not designed to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket (though previous allergy to chlorhexidine was an exclusion criterion in these trials). In view of recent reports in the UK of two cases of serious adverse events associated with irrigation of dry socket with chlorhexidine mouthrinse, it is recommended that all members of the dental team prescribing chlorhexidine products are aware of the potential for both minor and serious adverse side effects.