Comparative evaluation of analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of ibuprofen and traumeel after periodontal flap surgery: A randomized triple-blind clinical trial

Comparative Effectiveness of the Homeopathic Preparation Traumeel S in Third Molar Extraction Surgery: A Preliminary Triple-Blind Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

 This preliminary study aimed to evaluate whether a homeopathic preparation (Traumeel S) might be a good option to control post-operative outcomes (pain, edema and trismus) associated with surgical removal of mandibular third molar teeth. The null hypothesis was that Traumeel S is not different from dexamethasone (gold standard) in controlling these post-operative inflammatory complications.

METHODS

 A randomized, "split-mouth", triple-blind clinical trial was conducted. Seventeen healthy patients with a mean age of 20.94 ( ± 5.83) years had their lower asymptomatic bilateral third molars removed. Patients were randomized to receive Traumeel S or dexamethasone pre-operatively by injection into the masseter muscle; each patient acted as his/her own control. At 24, 48, 72 hours and 7 days after the surgery, the pain was evaluated according to a visual analog scale, edema through linear measurements of the face, and trismus through the maximum buccal opening. Wilcoxon statistics or paired t-test were used, and a significance level of 95% was adopted.

RESULTS

 For pain, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone after 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. For edema, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone at all post-operative evaluations. For mouth opening, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone at 72 hours and 7 days after third molar extraction.

CONCLUSION

 With the exception of some early post-operative findings, the null hypothesis is not rejected. Traumeel S might be a good alternative approach to dexamethasone for controlling pain, edema and trismus after third molar removal.

Systematic Review on the Use of Homeopathy in Dentistry: Critical Analysis of Clinical Trials

Objectives: The objective of this research was to systematically map the literature on homeopathy and dentistry studies and to evaluate the effectiveness of using homeopathy in dental practice through the critical analysis of clinical studies. Design: The search for scientific articles in any language, year, and place of publication was made in the databases of Public Medline (PUBMED), Web of Science, Cochrane, and Virtual Health Library; the articles selected were later classified according to the type of study. Gray literature was accessed through Google Scholar. Clinical trials were analyzed for methodological quality. Two previously trained reviewers accomplished the entire process independently. Results: Of the 281 studies retrieved by means of the search, 44 met the eligibility criteria, with prevalence of literature reviews (56.8%), followed by clinical trials (34.1%), cross-sectional studies (6.8%), laboratory research (6.8%), and longitudinal observational studies (4.5%). The clinical trials identified were published from 1965 to 2019, using homeopathy in several dental specialties: in Endodontics, Periodontics, Orofacial Pain, Surgery, Pediatric Dentistry, and Stomatology, as well as in cases of dental anxiety. Qualitative failures, in all criteria investigated, and positive influences of the individual prescriptions on the results of treatments reported were observed. Conclusions: There is still a scarcity of studies about homeopathy and dentistry. The clinical trials selected showed positive effects on oral health; however, when they were critically evaluated, it was possible to recognize qualitative failures, mainly relative to double-blinding. It is necessary to encourage research on the subject, using standardized methodological procedures, to obtain better evaluation of the clinical applicability.