scholarly journals Third Molar Extraction: Irrigation and Cooling with Water or Sterile Physiological Solution: A Double-Blind Randomized Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Luca Sbricoli ◽  
Alessia Cerrato ◽  
Anna Chiara Frigo ◽  
Gastone Zanette ◽  
Christian Bacci
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Physiological Solution ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Surgical Field ◽  
Molar Extraction

Background: The present study aimed to ascertain whether any significant reduction in patients’ postoperative pain and inflammation could be achieved by using sterile physiological solution instead of normal water to irrigate the surgical field and cool the dental bur during third molar extractions. Methods: The study concerned 22 patients (11 females and 11 males) in good general health, who were referred to the Dental Clinic at Padova University hospital for lower third molar extractions. They were randomly assigned to two groups. Only the fluid used to irrigate the surgical field and cool the dental bur differed between the two study groups, being sterile physiological solution for group A, and mains water for group B. Postoperative pain, swelling, trismus and inflammation with high sensitivity CRP where measured and statistically evaluated. The numerosity of our sample was calculated on the grounds of an endpoint based on data in the literature. Results: Eighteen patients needed bilateral extractions, and 4 required only one extraction, so a total of 40 third molars were extracted. A sterile physiological solution was used to irrigate the surgical field in 20 extractions, while water was used in the other 20 cases. Data analysis with Wilcoxon test show no differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: no differences between groups for any of the parameters considered, after third molar extraction procedures undertaken using either sterile physiological solution or water for irrigation and cooling purposes.

Oral pregabalin for postoperative pain relief after third molar extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1819-1826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya ◽  
Francisco J. Manzano-Moreno ◽  
Rafael Galvez-Mateos ◽  
Maria Paloma González-Rodriguez ◽  
Cristina Talero-Sevilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Postoperative Pain Relief ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Molar Extraction

scholarly journals Randomized Split-Mouth Study on Postoperative Effects of Palmitoylethanolamide for Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery

ISRN Surgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Bacci ◽  
Giulia Cassetta ◽  
Bruno Emanuele ◽  
Mario Berengo
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Drug Tolerability ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Surgical Extraction ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Molar Extraction

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of Normast 300 mg in reducing swelling and pain after the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. Materials and Methods. A randomized, split-mouth, single-blind study was conducted on 30 patients between 18 and 30 years of age requiring lower third molar extraction. Patients underwent bilateral extractions in a randomized sequence, one extraction being performed under Normast treatment. The Normast treatment involved 2 tablets a day for 15 days. The parameters assessed at each procedure were trismus, swelling, pain, NSAID consumption, postoperative complications, drug tolerability, and safety. The results obtained were processed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results. Perceived postoperative pain was reportedly significantly milder on Normast treatment than control. The trend of the means differed over time (P<.0001) and between the two extraction groups (P<.0221). On the other hand, for edema and trismus, the trend differed over time for both groups but did not differ between the two groups. Discussion. Our analyses indicate that patients experienced significantly less postoperative pain when they were treated with Normast. Conclusions. Administering Normast improves the postoperative course—in terms of pain—after lower third molar extraction.

TRPV1 antagonistic analgesic effect: A randomized study of AZD1386 in pain after third molar extraction

Pain ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. 808-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Quiding ◽  
Bror Jonzon ◽  
Ola Svensson ◽  
Lynn Webster ◽  
Annika Reimfelt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Molar Extraction

scholarly journals “Importance of Plasma Rich Growth Factors In Tooth Socket-In Concern of DRY SOCKET” (A Comperative Study)

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (09) ◽  
pp. 5039-5043
Author(s):  
Dr santosh Mishra ◽  
Shukla M ◽  
Arya V
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factors ◽  
Healing Rate ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Surgical Removal ◽  
Dry Socket ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Molar Extraction

Introduction: The high prevalence of dry socket or alveolar osteitis (AO) is of concern in surgical removal of third molars. The aim of the present study was to assess the preventive effect of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) on AO and also its effect on pain management and healing acceleration in third molar extraction sockets of high-risk patients. Materials and Methods: This split-mouth, double-blind clinical trial included 40 bilateral third molar extractions (80 sockets) with at least one identified risk factor for AO. PRGF was obtained from patient’s own blood, based on manufacturer’s instruction, and blindly placed in one of the two bilateral sockets (PRGF group; n = 20) of each patient. The contralateral socket was treated with a placebo (control group; n = 20). Samples were evaluated for AO and pain incidence on days 2, 3 and 4 and healing and infection on days 3 and 7. Data were analyzed in SPSS v16 using Wilcoxon test. Results: There was a significant difference in dry socket and pain incidence and healing rate between the two groups. Intensity of pain and occurrence of dry socket in the study group was lower than the controls. Also the healing rate was higher (P < 0.05) for the PRGF group. No sign of infection was seen in either group. Conclusion: The application of PRGF may significantly reduce the incidence of AO or its associated pain and may accelerate healing. The prophylactic use of PRGF following third molar extraction may be suggested especially in the patients at risk of AO.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document