Do corticosteroids reduce postoperative pain following third molar intervention?

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids have been widely used by oral surgeons for reducing swelling caused by wisdom teeth surgery. However, they have not been proven to decrease pain. This study was aimed at analyzing previous studies pertaining to corticosteroids and pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery. METHODS: The Science Direct, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant journals according to a systematic search strategy (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study). Randomized controlled trials published in English from 1998 to 2017 were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were included, with a total of 36 comparative cases. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone were the most commonly used corticosteroids. Intramuscular injections of corticosteroids were optimal for pain reduction, regardless of the time of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids can be used as an adjuvant for pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone delivered via the intramuscular route is the best method for effective pain reduction. The ideal time for administration of corticosteroids is the preoperative period.

Dexamethasone Injection Into Pterygomandibular Space Versus Sublingual Space on Post-Operative Sequalae of Lower Third Molar Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The surgical removal of lower third molar is still the most common surgical procedure that is done in oral and maxillofacial surgery field and creates the predictable post-operative sequelae such as pain, swelling, stiffness and difficulty in mouth opening. The purpose of this study is to compare pre-operative dexamethasone injection into pterygomandibular space (PGS) and sublingual space (SLS) in lower third molar intervention of post-operative pain, swelling, and limited mouth opening. METHODS: This study is the split-mouth, randomized crossover clinical trial in 30 healthy patients (mean age 21 years). These patients had similar bilateral lower third molar impactions. The patients were randomly divided into two groups receiving either 8-mg dexamethasone injection into SLS or PGS with the 4-week washout period intervention. Clinical assessment of facial swelling and maximum mouth opening was performed before operation and on day 2 and day 7 after operation. The post-operative pain was also measured by patients' response on pain visual analogue scale (VAS) on the first, second and third day after intervention. RESULTS: There is no significant difference between PGS group and SLS group in pain and swelling on the second and seventh day after operation. However, PGS group showed a greater degree of limited mouth opening than SLS group on the second day after operation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that 8-mg dexamethasone injection into PGS or SLS was not different in reduction of pain, swelling, and limited mouth opening. This result suggests that dexamethasone injection into PGS or SLS is similarly effective.

Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Planning in Surgery-First Orthognathic Surgery: Planning Versus Outcome.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of computer-assisted planning in orthognathic surgery (OGS) has been extensively documented over the last decade. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) virtual planning in surgery-first OGS. METHODS: Fifteen patients with skeletal class III malocclusion who underwent bimaxillary OGS with surgery-first approach were included. A composite skull model was reconstructed using data from cone-beam computed tomography and stereolithography from a scanned dental cast. Surgical procedures were simulated using Simplant O&O software, and the virtual plan was transferred to the operation room using 3D-printed splints. Differences of the 3D measurements between the virtual plan and postoperative results were evaluated, and the accuracy was reported using root mean square deviation (RMSD) and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: The virtual planning was successfully transferred to surgery. The overall mean linear difference was 0.88 mm (0.79 mm for the maxilla and 1 mm for the mandible), and the overall mean angular difference was 1.16°. The RMSD ranged from 0.86 to 1.46 mm and 1.27° to 1.45°, within the acceptable clinical criteria. CONCLUSION: In this study, virtual surgical planning and 3D-printed surgical splints facilitated the diagnosis and treatment planning, and offered an accurate outcome in surgery-first OGS.

Decreased post-operative pain using a sublingual injection of dexamethasone (8 mg) in lower third molar surgery.

BACKGROUND: Every patient who undergoes mandibular third molar surgery is concerned about post-operative pain. Indeed, previous researchers have used various methods to treat such pain. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of sublingual injection of dexamethasone (8 mg) to treat post-operative pain after mandibular third molar surgery. METHOD: This was a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, clinical trial, involving 48 healthy patients who required surgical removal of two mandibular third molars with similar bilateral positions. All operations were performed by the same experienced surgeon. The patients were randomized into a study group (8 mg dexamethasone injection) and a placebo group (normal saline injection). Both interventions were injected into the sublingual space immediately after local anesthesia, 30 min before the first incision. The study group received an 8 mg dexamethasone injection, while the placebo group received a normal saline injection. The wash period between the patients' two operations was 3 to 4 weeks. Pain was assessed by recording the number of analgesic tablets (rescue drug) consumed, as well as by noting the patients' responses to the visual analog scale (VAS) on the first, second, and third days after surgery. RESULTS: The study group differed significantly from the placebo group in terms of VAS score and analgesic consumption. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone (8 mg), injected sublingually, significantly eased post-operative pain after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar.

Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. METHOD: This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. RESULTS: The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. CONCLUSION: We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.