RESUMO
The corticosteroids have been used for preemptive management of surgical sequelae after mandibular third molar extraction. The aim of this article was to review the efficacy of methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone in the management of postsurgical pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery. Randomized, double-blinded studies from PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, DOSS, Cochrane central, and Web of Science were identified by using a search strategy. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of use of dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for mandibular third molar extraction were only considered. The studies involving the use of any other corticosteroid agent were excluded. Outcomes assessed were postoperative pain, the number of rescue analgesics required, swelling, trismus, and adverse events. The search strategy yielded 1046 articles for title and abstract screening, out of which only seven studies were included in the systematic review after full text screening. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies with regards to the method as well as the parameters assessed. Risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in other four studies. On pooled analyses, there was no significant difference with respect to pain, rescue analgesics, and swelling in the test and the control group. Forest plot analysis showed that dexamethasone had lesser trismus in early postoperative period (postoperative day 2) as compared to methylprednisolone. None of the included studies reported any adverse effects. Both the corticosteroids have similar efficacy in reducing the postoperative pain and swelling; however, dexamethasone showed statistically significant difference from methylprednisolone in reducing trismus (estimated standardized mean difference of -0.69 mm; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.38; p < 0.0001) in the early postoperative period. However, due to statistical heterogeneity, quality of the evidence for the review was low to moderate. Hence, more studies with larger study sample and low risk of bias are needed to confirm these results.