scholarly journals A randomized double blind controlled trial comparing Ibuprofen versus Ibuprofen plus Acetaminophen plus Caffeine for pain control after impacted third molar surgery

2012 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 110-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahrokh Raisian ◽  
Hamid Reza Fallahi ◽  
Leila Badakhshan ◽  
Dana Zandian
Keyword(s):  
Pain Control ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Impacted Third Molar

scholarly journals The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for impacted and semi-impacted third molar surgery: A prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e58610918398
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Silva Gangá ◽  
Henrique Augusto Pautz Tarantino ◽  
Natália Bermond Arpini ◽  
Tatiany Pimentel Ferreira ◽  
Paula Sampaio de Mello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Impacted Third Molar ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial

Impacted and semi-impacted third molar surgery is a frequent dental procedure. Due to potentially major tissue manipulation during surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis may be indicated to prevent infection of the surgical wound. This study evaluated the surgical conditions of patients following extraction of impacted and semi-impacted third molars with or without prior antibiotic prophylaxis. Signs of infection and inflammation, postoperative pain level and efficacy of the prescribed drugs were recorded. This was a prospective, randomized, double blind clinical trial with split-mouth design. A total of 23 healthy (ASA I) volunteers with indication for bilateral mandibular third molar extraction were recruited, totaling 46 surgical procedures. One hour prior to the procedure, volunteers received 1g of amoxicillin or placebo and a drug for pain prevention and control. The surgical acts were performed by last-year dental students. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale and an 11-point box scale at selected postoperative intervals of 4 h, 12 h, and 24 h. After seven postoperative days, study volunteers were examined for clinical signs of infection and/or inflammation, such as pus, intra and extraoral swelling, trismus, heat, flushing and temperature change. There were only two cases of postoperative complications, one of intraoral edema (placebo group) and one of trismus (antibiotic prophylaxis group). There were no statistically significant differences for any of the indicative signs of infection. The pain scales revealed no differences between pain levels in both groups at all times evaluated, regardless of the pain scale used (P > 0.05). To conclude, the low infection rate observed in our study does not reflect any need for antibiotic prescription in systemically healthy patients. The adverse effects of antibiotics in addition to selection for resistant bacteria outweigh the benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in healthy (ASA I) patients.

Antibiotic therapy in fully impacted lower third molar surgery: randomized three-arm, double-blind, controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basílio Almeida Milani ◽  
Henrique Camargo Bauer ◽  
Hélio Sampaio-Filho ◽  
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽  
Flávio Eduardo Guillin Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Double Blind

scholarly journals Injection of Lidocaine Alone versus Lidocaine plus Dexmedetomidine in Impacted Third Molar Extraction Surgery, a Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial for Postoperative Pain Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Javad Alizargar ◽  
Milad Etemadi Sh ◽  
Nasser Kaviani ◽  
Shu-Fang Vivienne Wu ◽  
Keyvan Jafarzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Control ◽  
Randomized Control Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Impacted Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
Molar Extraction

Objectives. Administration of medications such as dexmedetomidine as a topical anesthetic has been suggested in the pain control in dentistry. This double-blind randomized control trial study evaluated postoperative pain and associated factors following impacted third molar extraction surgery. Lidocaine alone was taken as the control and lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine as the intervention. Materials and Methods. Forty patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and interventional groups. 0.15 ml of dexmedetomidine was added to each lidocaine cartridge and the drug concentration was adjusted to 15 μg for the intervention group while only lidocaine was used in the control group. A visual analog scale was used to measure and record pain levels at the end of the surgery and 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery and number of painkillers taken by the patients after the surgery was also recorded. Results. Pain scores of the intervention group decreased significantly during the surgery and also 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery compared to the control group. The pain score was correlated significantly with our intervention during the surgery and also 6 and 12 hours after that (all P   value < 0 . 05 ). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the number of painkillers taken by the patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (all P  value > 0 . 05 ). Conclusion. In patients undergoing molar surgery, administration of a combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine is beneficial for the pain control. Clinical Relevance. Compared to the injection of lidocaine alone, combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine can be used for a better pain control in molar surgeries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document