Self-reported pain during different phases of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adolescents with crowding.

OBJECTIVES: To compare self-reported pain levels across various treatment phases using passive self-ligating (Damon) and conventional (Victory) standardized fixed appliance systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years old) with crowding and displaced teeth, planned for non-extraction treatment, were recruited from four orthodontic clinics. They were randomized into stratified blocks (1:1 ratio) using concealed allocation to receive Damon Q™ (34 boys, 28 girls) or Victory™ (39 boys, 31 girls). Pain and analgesic intake were assessed on seven different occasions with validated self-report questionnaires using a 10-grade scale. RESULTS: Of the 132 patients included, six were lost to follow up. Clinically relevant mean pain scores (≥4) were registered in both groups after bonding upper and lower arches and after insertion of 0.019 × 0.025 stainless steel archwire. The highest mean scores were reported on day two after bonding the upper arch (Damon 5.96, Victory 7.18, P = .011). In both groups, at least 40% reported taking analgesics during various treatment phases. The Damon group reported a lower intake of analgesics on days one and two (P = .042 and .037) after treatment initiation. In the entire sample, boys reported significantly higher mean pain scores than girls on the second and third days after bonding (P = .008 and .026, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lower pain levels were reported from the Damon group after bonding. In general, boys reported higher pain than girls did. Clinicians and adolescents need to be aware that clinically relevant pain levels can be expected not only after bonding but also in later phases.

The Predictive Value of Cold Pack Test for Pain After Third Molar Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients who are prone to postoperative pain may provide individualization of postoperative analgesia strategies. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the cold pack test is associated with postoperative pain levels after mandibular third molar surgery. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This prospective cohort study included healthy male patients admitted to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of a tertiary health-care center between June 2022 and December 2022 and scheduled for lower third molar extraction. Those who had used any analgesic within the past 10 days or had a history of intolerance/allergy to analgesics were excluded. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The primary predictor variable was pain tolerance, measured using the endurance test score. Subjects were grouped into two categories, low tolerance test score (withdrew the hand from the cold pack in <240 seconds) and high tolerance test score (maintained the hand on the cold pack for 240 seconds). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: The primary outcome variable was pain measured by the patients from 0 to 10 with the visual analog scale, and the secondary outcome variables were the amount of ibuprofen and paracetamol consumed in the postoperative period. Pain measurements and ibuprofen consumption were recorded at 0-2, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80, 88, and 96 hours (0-2 interval of the first 2 hours immediately after surgery). COVARIATES: Age, classification and position of mandibular third molar were utilized as covariates. ANALYSES: The relationship between pain tolerance and postoperative pain was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Fisher exact test. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 28.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 30 male patients with a mean age of 22.5 ± 4.8 years were included in our study. In the group with low pain tolerance, the pain scores at the first 2 hours, 32, and 48 hours after the operation (4.55 ± 3.59, 2.91 ± 2.59, 2.91 ± 2.43, respectively) were found to be significantly higher than the group with high pain tolerance (2.00 ± 2.67, 0.95 ± 1.68, 0.95 ± 1.39, respectively) (P < .05). In the first 2 hours after the operation, the amount of ibuprofen consumed was also significantly higher in the group with low pain tolerance compared to the other group, and 81.8% of this group felt the need to consume ibuprofen (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cold pack test, a more practical version of quantitative sensory testing, is useful in identifying male patients at risk of developing greater pain after third molar surgery. It can be helpful to provide effective analgesia in male patients with different pain tolerance thresholds.

Is Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin Really Effective in Reducing Expected Side Effects of Removing Impacted Third Molar Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Common side effects of third molar (M3) operations including pain, edema, and trismus have an adverse effect on patient quality of life. Injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) may ameliorate some of the side effects of the operation. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study is to measure and compare differences in pain, swelling, trismus, and quality of life between i-PRF side and a control side of subjects undergoing M3 removal. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND SAMPLE: This study is a single-center, split-mouth, randomized prospective clinical trial conducted at Ordu University Faculty of Dentistry. Patients who presented between March and August 2022 for the extraction of impacted third molars due to various reasons were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were local conditions and systematic comorbidities. Additionally, patients with differences that could cause bias between the sides were excluded from the study. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable is treatment i-PRF or control. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: The outcome variables of interest are the pain level and analgesic consumption values on the Visual Analog Scale, the distance between determined reference points, maximum mouth opening, and the Postoperative Symptom Severity scale data. A Postoperative Symptom Severity scale was created using questions commonly employed in the clinical evaluation of patients following the extraction of third molars. This scale was further divided into subscales corresponding to the 7 primary adverse effects identified in a prior study. COVARIATES: Covariate variables, sex, age, and operation times. ANALYSES: The normality of the distribution of the study data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Depending on whether the data exhibited a normal distribution or not, the data were analyzed using either the paired t-test or the Wilcoxon test. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study included 35 patients with a mean age of 19.97 ± 2.07 years. The i-PRF side significant success in postoperative edema measurements. There was a statistically significant difference observed between the control side and the i-PRF side on the second day (control: 9.74 ± 0.57 mm, i-PRF: 9.46 ± 0.51 mm) and seventh day (control: 9.33 ± 0.59 mm, i-PRF: 9.12 ± 0.50 mm) in lateral canthus-angulus measurements (P: .01 and P: .04, respectively). Additionally, on the second day, there was a statistically significant difference in tragus-commisura measurements (control: 11.53 ± 0.62 mm, i-PRF: 11.31 ± 0.58 mm) with a P value of .02. There was no significant difference observed between the sides in terms of postoperative pain (P > .05). However, analgesic consumption in the i-PRF side was significantly lower at the sixth hour (control: 1.8 ± 0.58 dose, i-PRF: 1.14 ± 0.35 dose), 24th hour (control: 1.77 ± 0.54 dose, i-PRF: 1.14 ± 0.35 dose), and second day (control: 1.8 ± 0.47 dose, i-PRF: 1.4 ± 0.73 dose) postoperatively (P: .000, P: .000, and P: .012). Mouth opening was significantly lower in the i-PRF side on the second day (control: 27.88 ± 6.48 mm, i-PRF: 25.51 ± 5.56 mm) (P: .025). However, i-PRF had no significant effect on postoperative quality of life (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: According to the study results, i-PRF had a limited effect on the management of postoperative pain, but i-PRF was effective in reducing postoperative edema. Further studies with larger patient sides are now needed to yield more detailed findings on the subject.

Efficacy of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Pain Management After Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery. A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain and swelling associated with the removal of the third molar (M3) adversely affect the patient's quality of life. PURPOSE: The study aims to measure pain reduction and analgesic use in patients treated with pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy following M3 removal and compares it to patients who did not receive PEMF. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: The single-center study was designed as a randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blinded trial on a sample of patients with impacted mandibular M3 ascertained by x-ray orthopantomography and computed tomography. PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: The predictor variable is postoperative pain management. It was assigned randomly to each subject who received either PEMF or standard therapy. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: The pain was quantified using a 100 mm visual analog scale and the number of analgesics taken. Each subject kept a daily clinical diary for 7 days, recording the amount of pain using the visual analog scale and the number of analgesic tablets taken. COVARIATES: The study covariates were age, sex, tobacco use, and Pell and Gregory's classification of M3s. ANALYSES: Student's t test was used, placing the statistical significance for P value < .05. The primary planned analysis was a 2-group, continuity-corrected, χ2 test of equality of proportions. RESULTS: The study sample included 90 patients, 47 men and 43 women, with an average age of 32.43 ± 8.80 years. PEMF was statistically associated with improved pain reduction (2.08 vs 5.04 with a P value = .0002) and consumption of fewer analgesics than the control group (2.6 vs 5.8 with a P value = .0062). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study's results attest to the effectiveness of PEMF therapy in pain control after M3 surgery.

Post-operative pain in non-surgical root canal treatment after sealer-based obturation versus warm vertical compaction: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: Post-operative pain may occur after non-surgical root canal treatment (NSRCT). The root filling technique and choice of sealer may be contributing factors. This randomized controlled clinical trial compared post-operative pain and analgesics intake after NSRCT using a sealer-based obturation technique (SBO) with single-cone gutta-percha and calcium silicate sealer (CSS) versus a warm-vertical compaction (WVC) technique with gutta-percha and a resin-based sealer (RBS). METHODOLOGY: This study was designed as a parallel-two arm, double-blind, randomized superiority clinical trial registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04753138). Patients referred for NSRCT fulfilling the inclusion criteria participated in this study. Pre-operative periapical radiographs and CBCT scans were taken and numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores were recorded. Upon completion of canal instrumentation, participants were randomly allocated to either Group SBO: SBO with CSS or Group WVC: Warm-vertical compaction with RBS. Post-operative pain and analgesics intake were recorded at 1, 3 and 7 days after endodontic treatment completion. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Friedman tests and a generalized estimating equation were used to assess differences in pain scores between the groups, within each treatment group at different time points and for correlations, respectively. RESULTS: The study included 195 participants (212 teeth). One participant declined to submit the NRS form. Therefore, 194 participants (211 teeth) were included in the final analysis (99.5% response rate). No statistically significant differences in post-operative pain or analgesic intake existed between the two groups at any time point (p > .05). Age, pre-operative pain, apical diagnosis and post-operative analgesic intake were significantly related to post-operative pain (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sealer-based obturation technique with CSS was associated with similar post-operative pain levels and analgesics intake as WVC with RBS. Regarding post-operative pain, SBO with CSSs may be a suitable clinical alternative.

Facts and trends in dental antibiotic and analgesic prescriptions in Germany, 2012-2021.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to overview German dentists' development of antibiotic and analgesic prescriptions from 2012 to 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A longitudinal database analysis was performed based on the annual reports of the "Research Institute for Local Health Care Systems" (WIdO, Berlin). RESULTS: From 2012 until 2021, dental antibiotic prescriptions fell by 17.9%. In contrast, the dental proportion of antibiotic prescriptions compared to all antibiotic prescriptions in Germany increased from 9.1 to 13.6%. Aminopenicillins enhanced their share from 35.6 to 49.4%, while clindamycin prescriptions declined from 37.8 to 23.4%. The proportion of ibuprofen prescriptions significantly increased from 60.4% in 2012 to 79.0% in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2013, the most frequently prescribed antibiotic by German dentists has been amoxicillin reaching nearly half of all dental antibiotic prescriptions in 2021. Simultaneously, the proportion of clindamycin has steadily decreased, but the level is still high compared to international data. During the past decade, ibuprofen as a first-line analgesic in German dentistry was continuously gaining in importance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Aminopenicillins have the best risk-benefit balance in dentistry, but the use of antibiotics generally must be limited only to cases of severe infections or compromised patients. Pre-existing diseases or permanent medications should always be considered when choosing an analgesic.

Efficacy of preoperative and postoperative medications in reducing pain after non-surgical root canal treatment: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed, using an umbrella review, existing systematic reviews on medications to prevent and control postoperative endodontic pain to guide professionals in choosing the most effective drug. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search in the PubMed (MEDLINE), LILACS, SciELO, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, and Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) databases retrieved 17 systematic reviews. The study included only systematic reviews of clinical trials with or without meta-analyses evaluating effectiveness of medications in reducing pain after non-surgical endodontic treatment. RESULTS: The evidence showed that steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids effectively controlled pain within six to 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone, prednisolone, paracetamol, and mainly ibuprofen provided higher postoperative pain relief. The quality of evidence of the reviews ranged from very low to high, and the risk of bias from low to high, suggesting the need for well-designed clinical trials to provide confirmatory evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This review emphasizes the efficacy of developing protocols for pain control after endodontic therapy.

Evaluation of the effects of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration on preemptive multimodal analgesia and anxiety in third molar surgeries: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration in preemptive analgesia and anxiety control in lower third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triple-blind, split-mouth clinical trial conducted with patients divided into two groups: control group, receiving placebo and dexamethasone, and test group, receiving pregabalin and dexamethasone preoperatively. The evaluated variables were pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), anxiety assessed through the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaires, hemodynamic parameters [Blood Pressure (BP), Heart Rate (HR), Oxygen Saturation (SpO2)], and sedation assessed by the Ramsay scale. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were included. The test group exhibited a significant reduction in pain at 2,4,6,8,12,16,24, and 48 h after surgery and in the consumption of rescue analgesics. Anxiety, evaluated by STAI and VAS, showed a significant decrease in the test group (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant decrease in BP at most of the assessed time points (p < 0.05) and a significant reduction in HR at two different time intervals (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), indicating a positive effect in the test group. There was no significant difference in SpO2 between the groups. Sedation assessment revealed a significant difference at all time points favoring the test group (p < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin coadministered with dexamethasone demonstrated significant efficacy in controlling postoperative pain and anxiety, as well as a sedative effect. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The coadministration of pregabalin with dexamethasone may presents potential advantages in both pain modulation and psychological well-being of individuals undergoing third molar surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC), No. RBR-378h6t6.

The effectiveness of interventions in reducing pain related to orthodontic separation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pain is an unpleasant experience and annoying sensation. To control this pain during orthodontic separation, different pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods have been used. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically assess the evidence of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods in reducing pain induced by orthodontic separation. SEARCH STRATEGY: An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed® (Medline), Scopus®, EMBASE®, Web of ScienceTM, Google ScholarTM, ProQuest, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) searching for the studies published between January 2012 and April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, each experimental group included patients who received elastomeric separators and one kind of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for pain reduction during the separation stage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB2 tool) was applied. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] approach was used to evaluate the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies (RCTs) were included in this systematic review. Nineteen of them were appropriate for quantitative synthesis and used VAS for pain assessment. Meta-analysis showed that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was an effective approach for pain relief after separators placement with standard mean difference of 13.79 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): -15.64, -11.94) at 6 h and 23.34 mm at 24 h (95% CI: -25.91, -20.77). LLLT was also effective when applied in split-mouth and the standard mean difference was 8.9 mm at 6 h (95% CI: -12.86, -3.33) and 17.15 mm at 24 h (95% CI: -30.12, -4.17). Ibuprofen had a pain control effect at 6 h and at 24 h compared with the placebo group. The standard mean difference was 14.37 mm (95% CI: -20.54, -8.19) and 20.46 mm (95% CI: -27.79, -13.13), respectively. There was no difference in pain control between ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Naproxen had lower visual analog scale scores in pain perception at 6 h and the standard mean difference was 7.03 mm (95% CI: -12.67, -1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The application of LLLT decreased the pain induced by the separation during the first day of teeth separation; the pain reduction showed an increase from 6 h to the end of the 24 h. However, the evidence is weak to moderate. The analgesics reduced the pain compared to placebo; this pain reduction had shown an increase from 6 h to the end of the 24 h. The strength of the evidence is moderate. Naproxen gel effectively reduced the pain compared to placebo; the evidence in this regard is moderate. Naproxen gel effectively reduced the pain compared to placebo, but it was less effective than the oral intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, the evidence in this regard is moderate. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335553) during the first stages of its conduction.

Role of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in temporomandibular joint disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To co mpare the e ffica cy of transcutaneous elec trica l ner ve stimulation with commercially ava ilab le analgesics in alleviating symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. Methods: The cross-sectional, interventional study was conducted from March 11, 2020, to August 31, 2023, at the Oral and Maxillofa cial S urger y Department of the Armed Forces Institute o f Den tist r y, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and comprised patients aged 18-65 years who were experiencing pain or distress in the temporomandibular joint region. The par ticipants were divided into intervention group A and control group B. Group A treatment involved applying electrodes near the temporomandibular joint, with parameters adjusted as per the treatment guidelines. Group B subjects received only analgesics along with basic care recommendations. Pain intensit y was assessed using visual analogue scale, while functional impairment and adverse effects were monitored. Data was analysed using SPSS 24. RESULTS: Of the 130 patients initially assessed, 100(77%) were included; 50(50%) in each group. In group A, there were 33(66.0%) fema les and 17(34.0 %) male s wit h overal l mean age 42.8±10.12 years. In group B, there were 30(60%) females and 20(40%) males with overall mean age 46.98±14.09 years. Pain intensity was significantly lower in group A compared to group B post-inter vention (p=0.009). Group A sub jec ts also showed significant post-intervention improvement in terms of mouth opening compared to group B patients (p<0.05). There was no significant intergroup difference with respect to adverse effects (p>0.05). Conclusion: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was significantly more effective than commercially available analgesics in alleviating symptoms of temporomandibular disorders.

Evaluating Knowledge, Self-Reported Confidence Levels, and Prescription Patterns among Dental Practitioners Regarding Analgesics in Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background and Objectives: Dental pain is a common problem that often leads to unscheduled dental visits and requires a comprehensive understanding of analgesics, including their indications and contraindications. The aim of this study was to investigate dentists' knowledge, self-reported confidence levels, and prescribing patterns of analgesics in dentistry. Materials and Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional online survey was conducted, resulting in 379 responses. Of these, 68.6% were general dentists, and 31.4% were specialists. The collected data included sociodemographic information, levels of knowledge, and prescription patterns. The survey questionnaire explored self-perceived practices, patient information during prescription, and guiding factors. Descriptive statistics and a generalized linear model for regression were used for data analysis. Results: Higher levels of knowledge were observed in specific contexts such as secondary/tertiary healthcare (p = 0.022), specialization in endodontics (p = 0.003), and a higher number of working hours with patients (p = 0.038). Conversely, increased self-confidence was observed among endodontists (p = 0.008), oral surgeons (p = 0.011), and dentists with more than 6 h of patient interaction (p ≤ 0.001). Orthodontists and prosthodontists demonstrated lower knowledge levels, while specialists in family dentistry exhibited lower self-confidence. Self-confidence and knowledge displayed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.039, p < 0.001). The most frequently prescribed medication was ibuprofen (97.9%), primarily for surgical (83.9%) and endodontic procedures (60.9%), with the main indications being pulpal (85.8%), periradicular (57.3%), and postoperative pain (40.1%). Conclusions: This study reveals significant knowledge and confidence gaps among dentists, including limited awareness of the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for odontogenic pain, a lack of time for effective counseling, and perceived deficits in pharmacology education. To address these issues, targeted educational interventions are recommended to improve analgesic prescribing practice, close knowledge gaps, and increase dentists' confidence in more effective pain management.

Cannabidiol - an effective analgesic for toothache?

DESIGN: The study by Chrepa et al. is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-arm, phase IIA clinical trial with double masking which investigates the effectiveness and safety of Cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for acute dental pain. The intervention drug, Epidiolex is an FDA-approved CBD oral solution (100 mg/ml) derived from the cannabis plant. The psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not included. The maximum recommended daily dose of Epidiolex is 20 mg/kg. 64 patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain participated in the study and REDCap software was utilised to randomly assign participants into groups: CBD10 (10 mg/kg), CBD20 (20 mg/kg) and placebo. A single dose of the respective oral solution was administered, and participants monitored for 3 h. Patients remained blinded to group assignment, as did the outcome assessor. The provider was not blinded. The primary outcome measure was VAS (visual analogue scale) pain difference, compared to baseline and recorded at 7 subsequent marked times following administration (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 min). Additional outcome measures were also recorded: changes in bite force, pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, the maximum pain relief, psychoactive effects, mood changes and adverse events. CASE SELECTION: 40 female and 21 male patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain (defined as ≥30 on a 100 mm VAS) with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Participation required a negative test for recent drug and alcohol use, a negative pregnancy test and no use of analgesics within 6 h of the trial. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment, recreational cannabis users and patients taking CBD metabolising drugs were excluded along with those with an ASA classification above III. Patient characteristics recorded included: age, gender, race, tooth type affected, weight and BMI. DATA ANALYSIS: Mixed model analysis was used to compare numerical variables among the cohorts at the marked time intervals. VAS, bite force, Bowdle and Bond/Lader questionnaires were recorded. Inter-group analysis was completed using parametric and non-parametric post-hoc tests, including Holm-Bonferroni adjustment and the Shapiro-Wilk test, to evaluate data normality. NNTs were calculated for both CBD doses- the number of patients needing treatment before one patient experiences a minimum of 50% pain relief. X² tests were used to analyse categorical variables: pain intensity and adverse events. JMP software was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: 64 participants had originally enroled in the study, but three were excluded from data analysis due to 'unrealistic results', reporting complete pain relief within the first 15 min. 20 participants were given CBD10, 20 were given CBD20 and 21 placebo. 68% of the participants were Hispanic/Latino whilst 11% were white. The average age was 44 +/- 13.7. There was equal distribution of age, sex, race, tooth type, weight and body mass index (p > 0.05). No subject required rescue pain relief during the 3-h observation period. Compared to baseline VAS, significant pain relief was seen 30 min after drug administration for CBD10, versus after 15 min for CBD20 (p < 0.05). Pain reduction reached 50% at 60 min for CBD10 and at 120 min for CBD20. Both reported maximum pain reduction of 73% of baseline at 180 min. 33% pain reduction from baseline was seen in the placebo group, with a median VAS pain of 67% at 180 min. 45.4% of CBD10 and 46.6% of CBD20 required pain relief after 1-6 h, versus 37.5% of placebo (p > 0.05). Bite force increase was seen in both CBD10 and CBD20 groups at 90 and 180 min, versus no significant differences between time points in the placebo group. On assessing pain intensity, pain reduction was significantly associated with increasing time in the CBD groups (p < 0.001), versus no significant association with the placebo group (p = 0.0521). No statistically significant differences were seen between and within the groups for Bowdle or Bond/Lader questions (p > 0.05). In the 3 h observation period, CBD10 experienced 14 times more sedation symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05), whilst CBD20 experienced this 8 times more (p < 0.05). Within the 3 h, CBD20 were 10-fold more likely to have diarrhoea and abdominal pain (p < 0.05), with some experiencing pain beyond the 3 h but resolving within the day. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this randomised clinical trial, pure CBD drug Epidiolex demonstrates effective analgesia against acute toothache.

PREEMPTIVE INTRAVENOUS IBUPROFEN AND LOCAL KETAMINE IMPROVE POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA FOLLOWING THIRD MOLAR SURGERY: A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED CLINICAL STUDY.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of preemptive ibuprofen, local ketamine, and their combination in managing postoperative pain and trismus following third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients were randomly divided into 4 groups. The Intrafen Group had their impacted third molars surgically removed under local anesthesia after receiving intravenous (IV) ibuprofen for preemptive effect. The Ketamine Group received an IV placebo before the surgery, and the extraction process was completed with a local anesthetic-ketamine combination. The Combined Group received preemptive IV ibuprofen before the procedure, and the surgery was performed with a local anesthetic-ketamine combination. The Control Group received an IV placebo before the procedure and then had their impacted third molars removed under local anesthesia. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) values, corresponding to the patients' pain levels at the 2nd and 12th postoperative hours and the total amount of analgesic dose used in the first 24 hours, were recorded, and evaluated. The maximum mouth opening of the patients was measured immediately before the procedure, and on the second and seventh postoperative days. The level of patient satisfaction in all groups was assessed during the procedure. RESULTS: The mean VAS value corresponding to the second-hour pain level of the combined group was statistically significantly lower than the other groups (P = .003). A statistically significant difference was found in the mean VAS values corresponding to the pain levels of the groups, favoring the combined group compared to the other groups (P ≤ .001). A significant difference was observed between the VAS difference values corresponding to the pain levels of the Intrafen group and the Ketamine group, favoring the Intrafen group (P = .038). The Ketamine group consumed the most analgesic on average over the first 24 hours, whereas the Combined group consumed the least. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean trismus levels of the groups on days 0-2 (P = .528) and days 0-7 (P = .129). The intraoperative patient satisfaction level of the combined group was significantly higher than that of the other groups (P = .030). CONCLUSION: Preemptive Intrafen is an effective regimen for postoperative pain management and is superior to the local anesthetic-ketamine regimen. The most effective method to reduce postoperative pain following third molar surgery is to use a combination of these 2 regimens. However, none of the treatment methods used in the study had a positive effect on postoperative trismus.

A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies in Support of the Role of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Dentistry.

Patient pain is a common problem faced by dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Craniofacial pain may be caused not only by inflammation in the teeth, but also various oral, facial, and nerve-related diseases, as well as tumors. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) constitute the basis of the analgesic ladder. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), NSAIDs are the first-line drugs in relieving pain and inflammation of oral conditions. NSAIDs have been used in almost every field of dentistry. These drugs are applied in conservative dentistry and endodontics, dental surgery, orthodontics, periodontology, and oral mucosal diseases, as well as head and neck oncology. Some of the NSAIDs exhibit additional therapeutic effects, such as inhibition of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kappaB) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), and reduction of oxidative stress or leukocyte passage to the site of inflammation, which further reduces inflammation in tissues. The topical use of NSAIDs in dentistry is worthy of attention and further research as it will significantly reduce the adverse effects of systemic administration. This article aims to review the preclinical and clinical studies that have supported the role of NSAIDs in dentistry.

The Beneficial Effect of Preoperative Dexmedetomidine in Controlling Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting After Orthognathic Surgery: A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Controlling postoperative pain and nausea (PONV) following orthognathic surgery can be challenging. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in reducing pain and preventing nausea and vomiting in subjects undergoing orthognathic surgery. METHODS: The authors implemented a triple-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Healthy adults with class III jaw deformity scheduled for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery were included. Subjects were randomized to the DEX or placebo groups. The DEX group received premedication with DEX 1 µg/kg IV over 10 minutes followed by a maintenance dose (0.2 µg/kg/hour) while the placebo group received normal saline. The primary outcome variables were postoperative pain, postoperative nausea, and postoperative vomiting . Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, postoperatively). Nausea and vomiting were recorded throughout the postoperative period. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2, t test, and repeated measures ANOVA with a P value < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 60 consecutive subjects with a mean age of 24.6 ± 3.5 years completed the study. There were 38 females (63.33%) and 22 males (36.66%). The mean visual analog scale was significantly lower in the DEX group at all time-points (P < .05). There was a significantly greater demand for rescue analgesics in the placebo group compared to the DEX group (P = .01). Fourteen subjects (46.7%) in the placebo group and one subject (3.3%) in the DEX group reported nausea (P < .001). Postoperative vomiting was not observed in any of the subjects. CONCLUSION: Premedication with DEX can be considered a viable treatment option for reducing postoperative pain and postoperative nausea after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.

Effectiveness of revitalization in treating apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Revitalization procedures primarily aim to eliminate clinical symptoms and heal periapical lesions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to elucidate the effectiveness of revitalization in treating apical periodontitis in necrotic mature and immature permanent teeth based on the following PICO question: In patients with permanent immature or mature teeth and pulp necrosis with or without signs of apical periodontitis (P) what is the effectiveness of revitalization (I) in comparison with calcium hydroxide apexification, apical plug and root canal treatment (C) in terms of tooth survival, pain, tenderness, swelling, need for medication (analgesics and antibiotics), radiographic evidence of reduction of apical lesion size, radiographic evidence of normal periodontal ligament space, radiographic evidence of increased root thickness and length (not for mature teeth), tooth function (fracture and restoration longevity), need for further intervention, adverse effects (including exacerbation, restoration integrity, allergy and discolouration), oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), presence of sinus tract and response to sensibility testing (O). (T) = Defined as a minimum of 1 year and maximum of as long as possible for all outcome measures, except 'pain, tenderness, swelling, need for medication (analgesics)', which is a minimum of 7 days and maximum of 3 months and OHRQoL which is minimum of 6 months and a maximum of as long as possible. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched for human, experimental and observational studies in English, complemented with hand search, until 31/10/2021. Studies recruiting teeth with pulp necrosis (with/without apical periodontitis), with minimum 10 teeth/arm at the end of the study and with a follow-up of at least 1 year, were included. Records without an abstract and a full text were excluded. The qualitative analysis of the included (non-) randomized controlled clinical trials was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Meta-analysis for survival and success (including a subgroup analysis for mature/immature permanent teeth) was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: From the 365 identified records, five met the inclusion criteria. The 12 months survival rate was 100% for all (im)mature permanent teeth in all groups (3 studies). The success rate at 12 months was 100% for immature permanent teeth for I and C (1 study), however, reduced to 92% and 80% for mature teeth in I and C respectively (1 study, p > .05). The risk of bias for the most critical outcome (survival) was high for two studies and low for one. For the critical outcome success, all assessed studies were highly biased. Meta-analyses provided pooled relative risk with no statistically significant difference between I and C for both survival (RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.96-1.04, p = 1.00) and success (RR = 1.06; 95%CI = 0.83-1.35, p = .66). The evidence level for survival was kept 'low' and for success was downgraded to 'very low' due to inconsistency and imprecision. DISCUSSION: The survival and success rates were favourable in all included studies and for all groups; however, these outcomes are not reliable due to the low certainty level. Clinically, the most reported adverse event was tooth discolouration, hence the application of bismuth oxide containing calcium silicate cements should be avoided in revitalization. Radiographically, caution is needed when assessing periapical bone healing and further root development with periapical radiographs, due to multifactorial inaccuracies of this imaging technique. Methodological and assessment concerns need to be addressed in future clinical trials. Long-term results are necessary for studies reporting revitalization of mature permanent teeth, as they seem to be experimental so far. CONCLUSIONS: No robust evidence was discovered to support that revitalization is effective to treat apical periodontitis in (im)mature permanent teeth. The success and survival rates of revitalized and fully pulpectomized (im)mature permanent teeth did not differ significantly. REGISTRATION: Prospero: CRD42021262466.

Pain profile during orthodontic levelling and alignment with fixed appliances reported in randomized trials: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the pain profile of patients in the levelling/alignment phase of orthodontic treatment, as reported from randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five databases were searched in September 2022 for randomized clinical trials assessing pain during levelling/alignment with a visual analogue scale (VAS). After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression, and certainty analyses. RESULTS: A total of 37 randomized trials including 2277 patients (40.3% male; mean age 17.5 years) were identified. Data indicated quick pain initiation after insertion of orthodontic appliances (n = 6; average = 12.4 mm VAS), a quick increase to a peak at day 1 (n = 29; average = 42.4 mm), and gradually daily decrease the first week until its end (n = 23; average = 9.0 mm). Every second patient reported analgesic use at least once this week (n = 8; 54.5%), with peak analgesic use at 6 h post-insertion (n = 2; 62.3%). Patients reported reduced pain in the evening compared to morning (n = 3; MD = - 3.0 mm; 95%CI = - 5.3, - 0.6; P = 0.01) and increased pain during chewing (n = 2; MD = 19.2 mm; 95% CI = 7.9, 30.4; P < 0.001) or occlusion of the back teeth (n = 2; MD = 12.4 mm; 95% CI = 1.4, 23.4; P = 0.3), while non-consistent effects were seen for patient age, sex, irregularity, or analgesic use. Subgroup analyses indicated increased pain among extraction cases and during treatment of the lower (rather than the upper) arch, while certainty around estimates was moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicated a specific pain profile during orthodontic levelling/alignment, without signs of consistent patient-related influencing factors.

Pain management following dental trauma and surgical procedures.

Surgical procedures and post-traumatic management of dental patients require effective pain management during treatment, but being considerably more invasive than conservative treatments, pain management is required into the postoperative period. Clinical trials on pain intensity following dental surgical procedures (e.g., 3rd molar extraction, implant placement, periodontal, and endodontic surgery) have shown that pain is most intense approximately 5-6 h after completion of the procedure, reaching its peak levels during the first postoperative day. Greatest consumption of analgesics occurs during the first 48-72 h after 3rd molar extraction. For the management of perioperative pain associated with either conservative or surgical dental treatment, the local anesthetics articaine, lidocaine, mepivacaine, and prilocaine are preferred. These drugs, with a vasoconstrictor, provide a rapid onset and a duration of pulpal anesthesia adequate to complete most dental and surgical procedures painlessly. For management of post-traumatic and postsurgical pain, bupivacaine-administered by an appropriate nerve block-near the conclusion of a surgical procedure, can provide the patient with a pain-free period of up to 12 h. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs represent the most effective drugs for the management of dental postsurgical pain. NSAIDs, as a group in therapeutic doses, have numbers needed to treat (NNTs) ranging from 2 to 3, while opioid analgesics do not approach those for NSAIDs. A protocol for management of pain following surgical procedures and traumatic injuries is discussed in this paper and includes preemptive NSAID; perioperative pain management; postoperative pain management-local anesthesia; postoperative pain management-analgesics; postoperative telephone call.

Plectranthus Species with Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Potential: A Systematic Review on Ethnobotanical and Pharmacological Findings.

The use of medicinal plants to treat inflammatory conditions and painful processes has attracted the attention of scientists and health professionals due to the evidence that natural products can promote significant therapeutic benefits associated with fewer adverse effects compared to conventional anti-inflammatory drugs. The genus Plectranthus is composed of various plants with pharmacological potential, which are used to treat various diseases in traditional communities worldwide. The present study systematically reviewed Plectranthus species with anti-inflammatory and analgesic potential. To this end, a systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science. Different combinations of search terms were used to ensure more excellent article coverage. After the selection, a total of 45 articles were included in this review. This study identified twelve Plectranthus species indicated for the treatment of different inflammatory conditions, such as wounds, fever, bronchitis, abscess, asthma, hepatitis, labyrinthitis, tonsillitis, and uterine inflammation. The indications for pain conditions included headache, sore throat, heartburn, menstrual cramp, colic, toothache, stomachache, migraine, chest pain, abdominal pain, local pain, labor pain, and recurring pain. Among the listed species, ten plants were found to be used according to traditional knowledge, although only four of them have been experimentally studied. When assessing the methodological quality of preclinical in vivo assays, most items presented a risk of bias. The SR results revealed the existence of different Plectranthus species used to treat inflammation and pain. The results of this systematic review indicate that Plectranthus species have the potential to be used in the treatment of diseases with an inflammatory component, as well as in the management of pain. However, given the risk of biases, the experimental analysis of these species through preclinical testing is crucial for their safe and effective use.

Evaluation of the Analgesic Effect of High-Cannabidiol-Content Cannabis Extracts in Different Pain Models by Using Polymeric Micelles as Vehicles.

Currently, cannabis is considered an attractive option for the treatment of various diseases, including pain management. Thus, developing new analgesics is paramount for improving the health of people suffering from chronic pain. Safer natural derivatives such as cannabidiol (CBD) have shown excellent potential for the treatment of these diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect of a CBD-rich cannabis extract (CE) encapsulated in polymeric micelles (CBD/PMs) using different pain models. The PEG-PCL polymers were characterized by gel permeation chromatography and 1H-NMR spectroscopy. PMs were prepared by solvent evaporation and characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and transmission electron microscopy. The analgesic activity of CBD/PMs and nonencapsulated CE rich in CBD (CE/CBD) was evaluated using mouse thermal, chemical, and mechanical pain models. The acute toxicity of the encapsulated CE was determined by oral administration in mice at a dose of 20 mg/kg for 14 days. The release of CBD from the nanoparticles was assessed in vitro using a dialysis experiment. CBD/PMs with an average hydrodynamic diameter of 63.8 nm obtained from a biocompatible polyethylene glycol-block-polycaprolactone copolymer were used as nanocarriers for the extract formulations with 9.2% CBD content, which corresponded with a high encapsulation efficiency of 99.9%. The results of the pharmacological assays indicated that orally administered CBD/PMs were safe and exerted a better analgesic effect than CE/CBD. The micelle formulation had a significant analgesic effect in a chemical pain model, reaching a percentage of analgesia of 42%. CE was successfully encapsulated in a nanocarrier, providing better stability. Moreover, it proved to be more efficient as a carrier for CBD release. The analgesic activity of CBD/PMs was higher than that of free CE, implying that encapsulation is an efficient strategy for improving stability and functionality. In conclusion, CBD/PMs could be promising therapeutics for pain management in the future.