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

Pain control following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a comparison of the effectiveness of two different protocols

The use of multimodal analgesia is a common practice in clinical settings, where a combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action is used to enhance the effectiveness of an analgesic and reduce its adverse effects. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of concurrent ibuprofen and paracetamol with alternate administration in the management of postoperative pain after the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. A single-center, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized controlled clinical trial involved 56 patients undergoing scheduled surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Patients were randomly assigned to either Group A (Control), where they were instructed to take one tablet of ibuprofen 400 mg and two tablets of paracetamol 500 mg together every 8 h for 48 h, or Group B (Study), where they were instructed to take one tablet of ibuprofen 400 mg and two tablets of paracetamol 500 mg alternatively every 4 h for 48 h. The primary outcome measure was the intensity of postoperative pain, which was evaluated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10. The secondary outcome measure was the timing of the onset of the analgesic effect, the duration of pain relief, the frequency of rescue drug administration, and the time interval between taking the recommended medication and the need for rescue medication. Investigators involved in analyzing the patients' responses were blinded to the pain control regime used by the participants. Pain intensity during the first 48 h after the extractions showed that most participants experienced "some pain," including 50% in Group A and 35.7% in Group B. The percentage of patients reporting "no pain" was higher in group B than in group A, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.495). More than half of the participants (53%) in group A reported needing an extra dose in the 48-hour follow-up period, while 85% in group B reported pain relief (p = 0.002). When correlating the mean pain score to the complexity level, in patients with moderate complexity of extraction, higher pain scores were recorded in group B. The findings of this study show that the combination of Paracetamol and Ibuprofen are well-tolerated and effective option for post operative pain after surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Use of Paracetamol and Ibuprofen alternatively in the first 48 h showed a more effective pain control compared to concurrent use of these medications. However given the small sample size and patients recruited from a single center, multicenter studies with a bigger sample size and stratified complexity groups would enhance the generalizability of the findings.This trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration No: NCT06514222 dated 23/07/2024).

Clinical and Molecular Impact of Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin on Pain, Swelling, and Distal Periodontal Status of Mandibular Second Molars After Mandibular Third-Molar Extraction

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the role of A-PRF (advanced platelet-rich fibrin) in the enhancement of wound healing and protecting the periodontal health of mandibular second molars after the extraction of mandibular third molars. Additionally, the study assessed the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) of mandibular second molars as markers of inflammation. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five systemically healthy adult patients with bilateral removal of impacted mandibular third molars were included. Each patient received A-PRF in one extraction site, while the contralateral site served as a control. Periodontal parameters of the adjacent second molar, including probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL), were measured in distal-vestibular (DV) and distal-lingual (DL) sites. Pain, swelling, and overall healing were subjectively evaluated. Levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) in the GCF were analyzed. Evaluations occurred at baseline and three months post-surgery. Results: A-PRF significantly improved PD (from 4.69 ± 0.61 mm to 3.85 ± 0.34 mm in DV, and from 4.71 ± 0.65 mm to 3.79 ± 0.27 mm in DL, respectively) and CAL (from 2.41 ± 0.25 mm to 1.82 ± 0.21 mm in DV, and from 2.40 ± 0.36 mm to 1.75 ± 0.19 mm in DL, respectively) of the adjacent second molar, compared to control sites, three months post-surgery. Pain and swelling scores were notably lower on the 7th postoperative day in the A-PRF group. A-PRF also reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines in GCF, significantly more than in control sites, at three months post-surgery. Conclusions: A-PRF enhances the periodontal and inflammatory status of adjacent teeth and wound healing after the extraction of mandibular third molars.

Assessment of the pre-emptive effect of photobiomodulation in the postoperative period of impacted lower third molar extractions: A randomized, controlled, double-blind study protocol

Photobiomodulation is a safe option for controlling pain, edema, and trismus when applied postoperatively in third molar surgery. However, administration prior to surgery has been under-explored. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of pre-emptive photobiomodulation in reducing postoperative edema in impacted lower third molar extractions. Two groups of healthy individuals undergoing tooth extraction will be randomly assigned: Control group receiving pre-emptive corticosteroid and simulated photobiomodulation, and Photobiomodulation Group receiving intraoral low-intensity laser and extraoral LED cluster application. The primary outcome will be postoperative edema after 48 h. The secondary outcomes will be pain, trismus dysphagia, and analgesic intake (paracetamol). These outcomes will be assessed at baseline as well as two and seven days after surgery. Adverse effects will be recorded. Data will be presented as means ± SD and a p-value < 0.05 will be indicative of statistical significance.

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.

Do blood concentrates influence inflammatory signs and symptoms after mandibular third molar surgery? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, through a network meta-analysis, the effectiveness of blood concentrates in reducing pain perception, trismus, and edema after mandibular third molar extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in nine databases to locate randomized clinical trials comparing blood concentrate use after mandibular third molar extraction. Two authors selected and extracted the data independently. The individual risk of bias in the studies was assessed with the RoB v2.0 tool. A network meta-analysis compared postoperative pain and trismus scores after applying different blood concentrates, using the mean difference (MD) as an effect estimate. The GRADE approach assessed the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized clinical trials were included in the review and 18 in the meta-analysis. Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) was the most used blood concentrate, followed by platelet-rich plasma (PRP). The network meta-analysis, depending on the analyzed period, evaluated up to 1240 surgeries. Among the analyzed blood concentrates, advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) performed better among the analyzed blood concentrates, decreasing postoperative pain in 1, 2, 3, and 7 days and reducing trismus up to the inflammatory peak compared to blood clots. Only two studies had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low certainty of evidence, using concentrates seemed efficient compared to blood clots in reducing pain and trismus after mandibular third molar surgeries. A-PRF decreased postoperative pain throughout the evaluated time and trismus during the acute inflammatory peak.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A-PRF after mandibular third molar extractions performed better among the analyzed blood concentrates and seemed efficient in improving postoperative quality by decreasing inflammatory signs and symptoms.

Examining the efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen and meperidine for preventing post-operative shivering after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with general anesthesia

Postoperative shivering is a common complication that can lead to increased postoperative complications. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of intravenous ibuprofen and meperidine in preventing shivering following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A total of 120 patients, aged 20-70 and classified as ASA I-II, were enrolled in this triple-blind clinical trial. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: ibuprofen (800mg IV), meperidine (30 mg), or placebo (normal saline 2 ml), administered 30 minutes before the end of surgery. The occurrence of postoperative shivering was assessed and recorded at regular intervals (0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after surgery). Additionally, postoperative pain levels were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), sedation levels were evaluated using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was documented. The prevalence and severity of postoperative shivering were not statistically significant between groups. The VAS was significantly lower in the meperidine group than the ibuprofen group throughout the study (p <0.001). The VAS was significantly lower in the ibuprofen group than the placebo group at 0 and 15 minutes after surgery. Although the incidence of nausea was slightly higher in the meperidine group, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.75). Sedation scores were consistently lower in the ibuprofen group and higher in the meperidine group compared to the other groups (p<0.0001) The meperidine group had a significantly higher sedation score indicative of deep sleepiness (score of 4) than the other groups. Intravenous ibuprofen demonstrated comparable efficacy to meperidine in controlling shivering. Additionally, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and sleepiness was lower in the intravenous ibuprofen group, suggesting it is a potential alternative to meperidine.