ABSTRACT
Objectives: Surgical intervention for removal of an impacted third molar can lead to significant pain and swelling. Corticosteroids show promise for mitigating postoperative sequelae across various surgical contexts. The use of corticosteroids following minor oral surgery, though controversial, has already been proven effective. However, little research has explored peroral prescription of corticosteroids despite its convenience for outpatients and for non-surgeons like implantologists and periodontists and others who don't have access to needle injections. The aim of this study was to address a void in the literature by comparing the effects of two styles of preoral administration of prednisolone after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar and to determine which style minimizes postoperative sequelae. Materials and Methods: A randomized, split-mouth clinical study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of two different styles of preoral prednisolone in mitigating postoperative sequelae following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Fifteen participants were enrolled in the study. Random selection was used to determine the prescription style for the right and left mandibular arch. Group A included those who received a single dose of prednisolone 25 mg, while group B received prednisolone 5 mg postoperatively for a period of three days (5 mg three times/day on the first postoperative day, 5 mg twice/day on the second postoperative day; 5 mg once/day on the third postoperative day). Results: There was a significant difference in the distance between the corner of the mouth and tragus, which decreased with the time interval with respect to group B when compared to group A. Conclusion: The present study showed that a three-day tapered dose of prednisolone postoperatively was more effective in reducing post-extraction sequelae than a single-dose regimen.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral health-related quality of life, a prominent topic in dentistry, has been studied extensively. However, the comparison between various self-perceived and clinical oral health measures still needs to be explored. The purpose of the current study is; first, to report the self-perceived and clinically examined oral health measures that are associated with the oral impacts on daily performances. Second, to identify the oral health measure that best predicts greater oral impact scores. Third, to investigate the difference in findings related to the disease experience measures and the treatment measures. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out on children aged 12-14 years. The prevalence, frequency, and oral impact scores of each daily performance were calculated. Thirteen self-perceived OH conditions were assessed. Clinically examined oral health measures included gingival health, oral hygiene status, DMFT, DT, MT, and FT scores and, one or more decay (1 + D), missing (1 + M) and filled (1 + F) teeth. Simple linear and multiple linear regressions were carried out to report the associations. RESULTS: At least one oral health impacted daily performance was reported by 40% of the total sample of schoolchildren (N = 700). Based on the magnitude and precision of adjusted regression coefficients (RC), decay severity (DT) was identified as a better predictor of a greater oral impact score with regression coefficient values ranging between 0.3 (social contact) and 2.4 (1 + performance). Contrariwise, MT and FT components of DMFT were associated with lower oral impact scores. The self-perceived measures were also associated with oral impact scores and presented similar findings to that of the clinical oral health measures. CONCLUSIONS: Untreated decay significantly impacted daily performances, especially eating, sleeping, studying, and social contact. The findings are of importance to public health practitioners for reporting, treating, and preventing oral health problems in children, and eventually contributing to better oral health-related quality of life.
