Analgesic and adjuvant anesthetic effect of submucosal tramadol after mandibular third molar surgery

Efficacy and safety of parenteral and local application of tramadol in mandibular third molar extraction: a qualitative systematic review of current evidence

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of perioperative parenteral administration or submucosal infiltration of tramadol for perioperative pain control on the basis of pain intensity or analgesics consumption and perioperative outcomes in mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIAL-METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted up to 10 November 2022 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the analgesic efficacy of parenteral use of tramadol implemented as an adjunct to local anesthesia or intraoperative sedation/general anesthesia, in surgical extraction of mandibular third molars. Modified Jadad scale and Cochrane bias tool were used for the qualitative appraisal.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were selected for qualitative analysis. Nine studies involved intravenous, and 5 intramuscular administration of tramadol, while 5 evaluated submucosal infiltration with tramadol. Intravenous or intramuscular tramadol provided a weaker analgesic effect compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), while intravenous tramadol induced an enhanced analgesic effect than oral tramadol. Parenteral administration of tramadol improved the quality of postoperative analgesia versus placebo. No notable adverse effects were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral or submucosal infiltration of tramadol constitutes an effective and safe alternative analgesic approach in surgical extraction of mandibular third molars, yet the nociceptive effect of this analgesic modality could not supersede that of NSAIDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO No CRD42021227574.

Comparative Evaluation of the Local Anesthetic Action of Tramadol Hydrochloride With Adrenaline Versus Lidocaine Hydrochloride With Adrenaline for Maxillary Exodontia: A Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Tramadol hydrochloride (T-HCl) has demonstrated to have a local anesthetic effect similar to lidocaine hydrochloride (L-HCl) when administered locally for minor oral surgical procedures.

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare the anesthetic effect of T-HCl versus L-HCl in maxillary premolar extraction.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND SAMPLE

The study is a split-mouth, double-blind randomized clinical trial at the Faculty of Dental Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, India. The study sample was composed of patients referred for maxillary bicuspid extraction. Patients were excluded from the sample if, allergic to the study drugs, pregnant or lactating females, and smokers.

EXPOSURE VARIABLE

The variable is an anesthetic drug administered for local anesthesia and it is grouped into 2 categories, T-HCl and L-HCl. A supraperiosteal infiltration of T-HCl with adrenaline on one side and L-HCl with adrenaline on the contralateral side was injected.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

The primary outcome variable was profound anesthesia of T-HCl, where the patient sensed the loss of sensation of touch, temperature, and pain. Secondary outcomes were onset and duration of anesthesia, intraoperative pain, postoperative analgesia, and adverse reactions, were recorded.

ANALYSES

Inferential statistics, the χ2 Test, the Mann-Whitney Test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the parameters. The level of significance was set at ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients were included, and 80 teeth were extracted. Profound anesthesia was achieved in all the cases. The mean subjective duration of anesthesia in the T-HCl and L-HCl groups was 130.80 ± 20.01 minutes and 111.40 ± 14.87 minutes, respectively, with a P value of .001. The mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for pain during the procedure in the T-HCl and L-HCl groups was 0.60 ± 0.67 and 1.10 ± 0.71, respectively, with a P value of .002. The mean Visual Analogue Scale score for pain postoperatively in the T-HCl and L-HCl groups was 0.70 ± 0.72 and 1.40 ± 0.67, respectively, with a P value of .001. Six patients in T-HCl required postoperative analgesia when compared to 18 patients in L-HCl (P value < .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

T-HCl provides similar anesthetic outcomes in the extraction of maxillary bicuspids as L-HCl.

Efficacy and safety of ibuprofen gargle for postoperative pain after mandibular third molar extraction: A phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the postoperative efficacy and safety of using an ibuprofen gargle as a pain management strategy for patients who have undergone mandibular third molar extraction. We also ensured that the quality of treatment was not compromised throughout the study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: the ibuprofen-placebo (IP) group and the placebo-ibuprofen (PI) group. On postoperative Day (POD) 1, the IP group initiated ibuprofen administration, while the PI group started taking placebo. On POD 2, the IP group switched to using placebo, whereas the PI group switched to ibuprofen. From PODs 3-5, both groups were prescribed ibuprofen gargle. The primary endpoint was within-subject visual analog scale (VAS) score before and 5 min after the first use of the ibuprofen or placebo gargle on PODs 1 and 2 (ΔVAS5_ibuprofen  - ΔVAS5_placebo ). The incidence and severity of adverse events were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 and a subjective rating scale.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 40 patients. The within-subject VAS5 of the IP and PI groups were 1.25 ± 12.0 and -5.26 ± 8.93 mm, respectively. The treatment effect of ibuprofen gargle was -2.01 ± 10.62 mm (p = .246). None of the patients in each group presented with serious adverse events or clinically significant complications (including dry sockets) after extraction. Transient adverse events, such as throat tingling and oral discomfort (grade 1), were observed in each group.

CONCLUSION

Ibuprofen gargle was safe but did not provide significant pain relief when used after mandibular third molar extraction.

Local Tramadol Improves the Anesthetic Success in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Meta-Analysis

Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis is a painful clinical condition with a broad inflammatory component. Dental anesthesia in these patients is affected by the inflammatory process, reporting a high incidence of anesthesia failure. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analytical evaluation was to determine the effect of pre-treatment with tramadol in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, as well as for pain control and adverse effects. This study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021279262). PubMed was consulted to identify clinical investigations comparing tramadol and placebo/local anesthetics in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Data about the anesthesia, pain control, and adverse effects were extracted. Both the anesthetic success index and the adverse effects of local tramadol and placebo were compared with the Mantel−Haenszel test and odds ratio. Data analysis showed that the local administration of tramadol increased the anesthetic success rate when compared to placebo in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (n = 228; I2 = 0; OR = 2.2; 95% CIs: 1.30 to 3.79; p < 0.004). However, local administration of tramadol increased the risk of adverse effects when compared to placebo/local anesthetics (n = 288; I2 = 0; OR = 7.72; 95% CIs: 1.37 to 43.46; p < 0.02). In conclusion, this study shows that the local administration of tramadol increases the anesthetic success index when compared to placebo in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Tramadol as a local anaesthetic agent in dentistry: A systematic review of local and systemic adverse effects

Tramadol is an effective alternative local anaesthetic (LA) agent available in dentistry. This review aims to help guide practice by providing clinicians with relevant data regarding adverse effects (AE) associated with locally administered tramadol in the oral environment. A systematic search of three electronic databases was performed to identify relevant studies reporting AE associated with locally administered tramadol in the oral setting. Selected studies were reviewed and included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected included: publication year, study design, participant numbers, adverse effects and follow-up duration. Fifteen articles were included comprising of 547 tramadol participants across eight exodontia and seven non-exodontia studies. Thirty-eight associated AE were reported. Nausea was the most commonly reported (4.6%), followed by dizziness (1.3%), vomiting (0.7%) and local erythema (0.4%). No other AE were reported. The prevalence of total AE was similar in ≥ 50 mg tramadol doses (7.2-7.3%); however the total affected number is not dose dependent. The prevalence of AE and affected participants was less when tramadol was used as a sole LA rather than as an adjunct (5.6% vs. 7.9% and 3.4-5.6% vs. 6.3%, respectively). Thus, tramadol is a safe LA agent with a low prevalence of AE when administered in the dental setting.

Tramadol versus ketorolac for pain management after third molar surgery

Objectives:

To compare the analgesic efficacy of preoperative intravenous (IV) ketorolac versus tramadol in preventing postoperative pain after mandibular third molar surgery.

Methodology:

Two hundred patients in the age group of 18–40 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular molars were randomly allocated into one of the two groups (100 in each group) and underwent third molar surgery under local anesthesia. Group I received IV ketorolac 30 mg and Group II received IV tramadol 50 mg preoperatively. The difference in postoperative pain was assessed by five primary end points: pain intensity being measured hourly by Wong-Baker pain assessment scale for 6 h, onset of analgesia, duration of action, total number of analgesics consumed, and patient's global assessment.

Results:

Throughout the 6 h investigation period, patients reported significantly lower pain intensity scores, longer duration of action, lesser postoperative analgesic consumption, and better global assessment in ketorolac when compared to tramadol group. Patients in the ketorolac group significantly performed better than the tramadol group in terms of all parameters except onset of analgesia. All the drug-related complications were mild and did not require any investigation.

Conclusion:

The result of the present study shows that preoperative IV ketorolac 30 mg is more effective than tramadol 50 mg for postoperative pain following third molar surgery.

New Findings on Local Tramadol Use in Oral Surgery

In modern times, all procedures in oral surgery need to be painless and management of postoperative pain needs to be adequate. The surgical extraction of the third molar or alveolectomy of the wisdom tooth is one of the most common surgical procedures carried out in oral surgery and it includes rising a flap, bone removal and suturing. These surgical procedures usually cause swelling, trismus and moderate to severe pain. Third molar surgery is often used as a model in clinical trials that are directed toward reducing postoperative pain and improving its management. Tramadol is a well-known central acting opioid analgesic that produces analgesia against multiple pain conditions such as postsurgical pain, obstetric pain, terminal cancer pain, pain of coronary origin and neuropathic pain. Tramadol is an atypical opioid. When administered locally, it has both analgesic and anesthetic properties. The aim of this paper was to present new findings on local effects of tramadol in oral surgery.

Submucosal Diclofenac for Acute Postoperative Pain in Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Diclofenac sodium is a widely used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for relief of inflammatory pain. A recent formulation combines this drug with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) to improve its solubility and to enable subcutaneous administration. Previous studies confirmed the efficacy of this combination. This study's aim was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and local tolerability of diclofenac HPβCD administered as a local submucosal injection prior to lower third molar surgery. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase II single-center study. Seventy-five patients requiring mandibular third molar surgery were randomized into 1 of 5 groups: 5 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD, 12.5 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD, 25 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD, 50 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD, or 1 mL placebo. The respective study drug was injected into the mucosal tissue surrounding the surgical site prior to surgery following achievement of local anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of cumulative pain scores from end of surgery to 6 h postsurgery. This demonstrated a global treatment effect between the active groups and placebo, hence confirming the study drug's efficacy ( P = 0.0126). Secondary outcome measures included the time until onset of pain and the time until patients required rescue medication, both showing statistical significance of the study drug compared to placebo ( P < 0.0161 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The time until rescue medication ranged between 7.8 h (for 25 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD) and 16 h (for 50 mg/1 mL diclofenac HPβCD). Interestingly, the 5-mg/1-mL solution appeared superior to the 12.5-mg/1-mL and 25-mg/1-mL solutions (time until rescue medication = 12.44 h). A total of 14% of patients experienced minor adverse drug reactions (ADRs), of which 2 cases demonstrated flap necrosis. These resolved without further intervention. The study results overall indicate efficacy, safety, and relative tolerability of diclofenac HPβCD used locally as a submucosal injection prior to third molar surgery (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01706588).

The anti-inflammatory effect of tramadol in the temporomandibular joint of rats

Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic drug able to prevent nociceptor sensitization when administered into the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) of rats. The mechanism underlying the peripheral anti-inflammatory effect of tramadol remains unknown. This study demonstrated that intra-TMJ injection of tramadol (500µg/TMJ) was able to inhibit the nociceptive response induced by 1.5% formalin or 1.5% capsaicin, suggesting that tramadol has an antinociceptive effect, acting directly on the primary nociceptive neurons activating the nitric oxide/cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling pathway. Tramadol also inhibited the nociceptive response induced by carrageenan (100µg/TMJ) or 5-hydroxytryptamine (225µg/TMJ) along with inhibition of inflammatory cytokines levels, leukocytes migration and plasma extravasation. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that peripheral administration of tramadol has a potential antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effect. The antinociceptive effect is mediated by activation of the intracellular nitric oxide/cyclic guanosine monophosphate pathway, at least in part, independently from the opioid system.

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.

Effect of submucosal application of tramadol on postoperative pain after third molar surgery

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of submucosal application of tramadol, for acute postoperative facial pain, following the extraction of impacted third molar teeth. This prospective, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled study included 60 ASA I-II patients undergoing impacted third molar surgery under local anaesthesia. Following the surgical procedure, patients were randomly divided into two groups; group T (1 mg/kg tramadol) and group S (2-mL saline). Treatments were applied submucosally after surgery. Pain after extraction was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. The time at which the first analgesic drug was taken, the total analgesic dose used, and adverse tissue reactions were also evaluated. In group T, postoperative VAS scores were significantly lower compared to that in group S (p < 0.05). This study demonstrated that post-operative submucosal application of tramadol is an effective method for reducing acute post-operative facial pain after impacted third molar surgery.

Peripheral synergism between tramadol and ibuprofen in the formalin test

Preclinical Research Analgesics with different mechanisms of action can be combined in order to obtain pharmacological synergism, employing lower doses of each agent, thus diminishing side effects. For instance, an atypical dual analgesic such as tramadol (TMD) and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug such as ibuprofen (IBU) are good candidates to be evaluated when combined and applied peripherally. The present study was conducted to evaluate possible local synergism between TMD and IBU when combined peripherally using the formalin test in rats. The effects of the individual analgesics and their combinations were evaluated simultaneously using a 5% formalin dilution. Dose-effect curves were determined for TMD (50-400 μg/paw) and IBU (1-100 μg/paw). Experimental effective doses were evaluated and isobolographic analyses were constructed to evaluate TMD-IBU combination synergism. Both drugs produced a dose-dependent analgesic effect when applied separately. Isobolographic analysis showed synergism during phase 1 (0-10 min) and phase 2 (15-60 min) when compared with theoretical doses (P < 0.05), with interaction indexes of 0.06 and 0.09, respectively. The present information supports the peripheral analgesic effect of TMD and IBU, especially when combined at appropriate doses.