This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen trometamol (DT) with other analgesic drugs for pain relief after third molar surgery. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing DT with other analgesics for third molar surgery. The outcome measures were the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR) at the 6th and 8thpostoperative hours, time to rescue medication, and tolerability. In total, four studies met our inclusion criteria.A total of 660 third molar surgeries were performed: 365 in the DT group and 295 in the active control group. Compared to other analgesics, DT produced significantly better pain relief at the 6th postoperative hour:SPID (MD, 0.33; P = 0.01) and TOTPAR (MD, 0.41; P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the efficiency of pain relief at the 8th postoperative hour, time to rescue medication, or tolerability.Overall, a 25 mg dose produced the best results for pain relief. In conclusion, DT (25 mg) is a viable alternative to contemporary analgesics for pain relief after third molar surgery, particularly during the early postoperative period.

This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen trometamol (DT) with other analgesic drugs for pain relief after third molar surgery. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing DT with other analgesics for third molar surgery. The outcome measures were the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR) at the 6th and 8thpostoperative hours, time to rescue medication, and tolerability. In total, four studies met our inclusion criteria.A total of 660 third molar surgeries were performed: 365 in the DT group and 295 in the active control group. Compared to other analgesics, DT produced significantly better pain relief at the 6th postoperative hour:SPID (MD, 0.33; P = 0.01) and TOTPAR (MD, 0.41; P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the efficiency of pain relief at the 8th postoperative hour, time to rescue medication, or tolerability.Overall, a 25 mg dose produced the best results for pain relief. In conclusion, DT (25 mg) is a viable alternative to contemporary analgesics for pain relief after third molar surgery, particularly during the early postoperative period.

This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen trometamol (DT) with other analgesic drugs for pain relief after third molar surgery. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing DT with other analgesics for third molar surgery. The outcome measures were the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR) at the 6th and 8thpostoperative hours, time to rescue medication, and tolerability. In total, four studies met our inclusion criteria.A total of 660 third molar surgeries were performed: 365 in the DT group and 295 in the active control group. Compared to other analgesics, DT produced significantly better pain relief at the 6th postoperative hour:SPID (MD, 0.33; P = 0.01) and TOTPAR (MD, 0.41; P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the efficiency of pain relief at the 8th postoperative hour, time to rescue medication, or tolerability.Overall, a 25 mg dose produced the best results for pain relief. In conclusion, DT (25 mg) is a viable alternative to contemporary analgesics for pain relief after third molar surgery, particularly during the early postoperative period.

This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen trometamol (DT) with other analgesic drugs for pain relief after third molar surgery. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing DT with other analgesics for third molar surgery. The outcome measures were the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR) at the 6th and 8thpostoperative hours, time to rescue medication, and tolerability. In total, four studies met our inclusion criteria.A total of 660 third molar surgeries were performed: 365 in the DT group and 295 in the active control group. Compared to other analgesics, DT produced significantly better pain relief at the 6th postoperative hour:SPID (MD, 0.33; P = 0.01) and TOTPAR (MD, 0.41; P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the efficiency of pain relief at the 8th postoperative hour, time to rescue medication, or tolerability.Overall, a 25 mg dose produced the best results for pain relief. In conclusion, DT (25 mg) is a viable alternative to contemporary analgesics for pain relief after third molar surgery, particularly during the early postoperative period.

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.
Anesthesia ; Anesthetics, Local ; Carticaine* ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Methods ; Molar, Third* ; Tooth ; Tooth, Impacted

Dexamethasone has been used in oral and maxillofacial surgery for postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar surgeries. It is a potent and powerful drug that can alleviate the aforementioned postoperative sequelae. Dexamethasone is responsible for inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators in the inflammation process to improve patient quality of life after surgical intervention. There are several available routes of administering dexamethasone. This article will help determine the suggested routes of administration, dosage, parameters, and dexamethasone timing for third molar surgeries.

Background: Impacted mandibular third molar removal is one of the most commonly performed oral surgical procedures. This procedure can lead to several postoperative complications, such as trismus, facial swelling, and pain, which occur as a result of the inflammatory responses to surgery. This study compared the efficiency of preoperative injections of 4 mg versus 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space to reduce postoperative sequelae. Methods: This was a randomized, prospective, split-mouth, controlled study, including 52 mandibular third molar surgeries in 26 patients. Each patient was randomized to either the 4 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone injection group. Dexamethasone was injected into the pterygomandibular space after numbness from local anesthesia.Data were collected for trismus, facial swelling, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the number of analgesics taken during the evaluation period. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Statistically significant differences in postoperative facial swelling (P = 0.031, diff = 1.4 mm) and pain (P = 0.012, diff = 0.020) were found between the 8 mg and 4 mg dexamethasone groups. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for trismus and the total number of analgesics consumed (P > 0.05). Conclusion Compared to the 4 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection, the 8 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space was more effective in reducing postoperative swelling and pain following the surgical removal of the impacted mandibular third molar. However, the difference in trismus could not be evaluated clinically. Therefore, the recommendation of administering the 4 mg dexamethasone preoperative injection is optimal in the third molar surgical procedure.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) represents a subgroup of painful orofacial disorders involving pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) region, fatigue of the cranio-cervico-facial muscles (especially masticatory muscles), limitation of mandible movement, and the presence of a clicking sound in the TMJ. TMD is associated with multiple factors and systemic diseases. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of TMD in Nepalese subjects for the first time. METHODS: A total of 500 medical and dental students (127 men and 373 women) participated in this study from May 2016 to September 2016. The Fonseca questionnaire was used as a tool to evaluate the prevalence of TMD, and Fonseca's Anamnestic Index (FAI) was used to classify the severity of TMD. RESULTS: The majority of the participants with TMD had a history of head trauma, psychological stress, and dental treatment or dental problems. The prevalence of TMD in Nepalese students was mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of TMD in Nepalese subjects was mild to moderate. The majority of the study subjects had eyesight problems, history of head trauma, psychological stress, and drinking alcohol and had received dental treatments.
Craniocerebral Trauma ; Dentistry ; Drinking ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Fatigue ; Humans ; Male ; Mandible ; Muscles ; Prevalence ; Stress, Psychological ; Students, Dental ; Temporomandibular Joint ; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders

Oncological resection followed by reconstruction with a free fibular graft is still considered to be the gold standard treatment for functional and prosthetic rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. But this tedious traditional process is challenging for surgeons, as they have to deal with associated curve anatomy, surrounding innervations, and maintenance of functional and aesthetical acceptability. Such manual and operator’s skill dependent surgery can commonly demand a longer treatment duration; leading to an increased risk for prolonging the period of ischemia with increased morbidity, which frequently ends with an uncertain, unsatisfactory outcome. Technological advancements in the 20th and 21st centuries present a revolutionary improvement in the field of reconstructive surgery. Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and threedimensional (3D) bio-printing incorporating computer-aided design and computer-aided modeling is a promising tech in modern head and neck reconstruction. This recent innovation is more polished regarding initiation of patient-customized models, pre-bent plates, and osteotomy guides which further increase surgical precision, improve operative efficiency, ensure proper wound healing, shorten operative time, reduce operative cost, and decrease morbidities. This review focuses on the virtual surgical planning and 3D bio-printing technologies to evaluate their efficiency of qualitative and quantitative outcomes of resection and reconstruction of mandible in head-neck cancer using fibular graft.

Background: This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. Methods: The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients’ satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. Results: The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05).Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). Conclusion This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.