A comparative evaluation of the effect of diclofenac sodium with and without per-orally administered methylprednisolone on the sequelae of impacted mandibular third molar removal: A cohort randomized double-blind clinical trial

Complementary and alternative therapies for managing postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of complementary and alternative treatments on postoperative pain following lower third molar surgeries.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, and Cochrane Library) and grey literature was conducted up until May 2022. Randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of acupuncture, ozone therapy, laser (LLLT), drainage tube, kinesio-taping, ice therapy, and compressions on pain after LTM surgeries were included. The estimated mean differences (MD) for alternative therapies were pooled using the frequentist approach to random-model network meta-analysis NMA.

RESULTS

Eighty-two papers were included in the qualitative analysis; 33 of them were included in the quantitative analyzes. NMA revealed that drainage tube and kinesio-taping were superior in controlling pain 24-hours postoperatively than no-treatment. At 48-hours follow-up, kinesio-taping and LLLT more effective than placebo and drainage tube; and kinesio-taping and LLLT were superior to no treatment. At 72 h postoperatively, ozone therapy was superior to placebo; and drainage tube, kinesio-taping, and LLLT were better than no treatment. At 7-days follow-up, ozone and LLLT were superior to placebo; and LLLT and kinesio-taping were superior to no treatment. The SUCRA-ranking placed drainage tube as top-ranking intervention at 48-hours (98.2%) and 72-hours (96%) follow-ups, and ozone (83.5%) at 7-days follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest that these alternative and complementary therapies may be useful in reducing postoperative pain after LTM surgeries, and may offer advantages when combined to traditional pain management methods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Non-pharmacological therapies are gaining popularity among healthcare professionals and patients. This study found that some of these therapies, specifically kinesio-taping and drainage tube were effective in controlling postoperative pain after third molar surgeries. These findings have important implications for clinical practice, as they highlight the potential benefits of incorporating these therapies into postoperative pain management plans.

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

BACKGROUND

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

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

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

RESULTS

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

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

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

Comparison of safety and analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium with etodolac after surgical extraction of third molars: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study

Background

Surgical extraction of third molars is associated with postoperative pain and swelling at the extraction site. Pain is commonly managed using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Postoperative pain is usually moderate to severe in the first 12 h postoperatively and lasts for 3–5 days. However, with NSAIDs, these symptoms usually subside within 24 h. Diclofenac sodium and etodolac are NSAIDs, more selectively cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, with good analgesic efficacies.

Methods

We compared the safety and analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium with etodolac peroral after surgical extraction of third molars in a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The subjective pain improvement and pain relief after 2, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h using the visual analogue scale were measured as the study outcome.

Results

Etodolac was equivalent to diclofenac sodium in pain alleviation at all postoperative time periods. No significant differences were found between diclofenac sodium and etodolac groups (P > 0.05). Both study medications were well tolerated and safe with mild adverse effects in only a few participants.

Conclusion

Diclofenac sodium and etodolac are comparable in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety after surgical removal of third molars.

Comparative study of primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars

AIM

Aim of the study is to compare the primary and secondary healing after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars, in terms of swelling, severity of pain, trismus, and periodontal healing between two types of closure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 patients, divided into two groups randomly: group A, with 30 patients in which primary closure was done; group B, with 30 patients in which secondary closure was done. A comparison between two groups was done in terms of postoperative pain, swelling, trismus at first, third, and seventh postoperative days, and periodontal healing near adjacent second molar after 6 months.

RESULTS

The swelling and pain in group A were greater than that in group B, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Mouth opening is greater in group B compared to group A. There is no significant difference in periodontal healing in between two groups after 6 months. Complication like alveolar osteitis was noted in 1 patient (3.3%) in group B.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that secondary closure was better than primary closure in terms of postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus. Irrespective of any closure technique, there is no difference in terms of periodontal healing.