Efficacy of different dexamethasone routes and doses in reducing the postoperative sequelae of impacted mandibular third-molar extraction: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative effects of different dexamethasone (DXM) routes and doses on reducing postoperative sequelae (pain, swelling, trismus) after surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. METHODS: Five databases were searched on September 22, 2021, for randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Study heterogeneity, publication bias, and quality of evidence were investigated. Network meta-analyses were conducted (P < .05), and the P-score was used to rank comparisons of DXM doses and routes. RESULTS: Thirty-four eligible studies were included. Eight studies had low ROB, 21 had some concerns, and 5 had high ROB. The certainty of evidence evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool indicated low to very low certainty in most comparisons. The results showed that most DXM route and dose combinations were superior to a placebo in reducing the postoperative sequelae 1 day after surgical extraction. The results also showed that a 4-mg DXM submucosal injection substantially reduces pain 3 days after extraction compared with a 4-mg twin-mix or 8-mg intramuscular injection. Overall, it appears that 4 mg DXM submucosal injection or admixed with local anesthetic is effective in reducing postoperative sequelae after surgical extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the administration of DXM appears to be effective in reducing the postoperative sequelae, especially in the submucosal route. However, no noteworthy differences were found between the investigated DXM route and dose comparisons. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Submucosal DXM injection effectively reduce postoperative sequelae of third-molar extractions.

EFFICACY OF 4% ARTICAINE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK FOR MANDIBULAR MOLARS WITH SYMPTOMATIC IRREVERSIBLE PULPITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models. RESULTS: Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: 4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.