Comparison of Postoperative Pain Management Post Third Molar Surgery with Low Pre-Emptive Oral Doses of Celecoxib versus Acetaminophen: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

 Dr. Jyoti Kiran, Dr. Pratiksha A Srivastava, Dr. Vishesh Dhir, Dr. Radhika Gupta, D. K. Ravishankar, Dr. Mamta Singh
{"title":"Comparison of Postoperative Pain Management Post Third Molar Surgery with Low Pre-Emptive Oral Doses of Celecoxib versus Acetaminophen: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)","authors":" Dr. Jyoti Kiran, Dr. Pratiksha A Srivastava, Dr. Vishesh Dhir, Dr. Radhika Gupta, D. K. Ravishankar, Dr. Mamta Singh","doi":"10.36346/sarjods.2021.v03i02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The present study was aimed to investigate the pre-emptive analgesia attained with oral celecoxib compared with oral acetaminophen post mandibular third molar surgery. Materials and Methods: A doubleblinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed in order to examine patients having a mandibular third molar for extraction under local anesthesia. The patients were randomized for receiving a preoperative oral dosage of celecoxib or acetaminophen as the predictor parameter. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative pain assessed through a visual analog scale (VAS) at different time points. The secondary outcome parameter was the quantity of postoperative analgesics taken in both groups. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, the t test, and the Pearson c2 test. Significance was set at P < .05. Results: 60 patients were divided randomly into either celecoxib receiving group or acetaminophen receiving group. The postoperative pain scores in the celecoxib group receiving were significantly lower than those in the acetaminophen receiving group at 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours (P = .078, P = .0012, P = .0211, and P = .011, respectively). The number of patients who didn’t require any analgesics in the celecoxib receiving group was less than that in the acetaminophen receiving group (P =.0186). The average amount of rescue analgesic medication in the celecoxib group (0.6 0.8 dose) was significantly lower than that in the acetaminophen group (1.3 1.0 doses) (P = .002). The Kaplan-Meier curve (KM curve) was indicative of long-term survival of the patients receiving celecoxib compared to those who did not receive any rescue analgesic medication (P = .0055). Conclusions: Celecoxib, as the study reflects, has a significant pre-emptive analgesic effect, thus helpful in reducing the usage of postoperative analgesics after removal of the third molar.","PeriodicalId":299258,"journal":{"name":"South Asian Research Journal of Oral and Dental Sciences","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Asian Research Journal of Oral and Dental Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36346/sarjods.2021.v03i02.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The present study was aimed to investigate the pre-emptive analgesia attained with oral celecoxib compared with oral acetaminophen post mandibular third molar surgery. Materials and Methods: A doubleblinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed in order to examine patients having a mandibular third molar for extraction under local anesthesia. The patients were randomized for receiving a preoperative oral dosage of celecoxib or acetaminophen as the predictor parameter. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative pain assessed through a visual analog scale (VAS) at different time points. The secondary outcome parameter was the quantity of postoperative analgesics taken in both groups. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, the t test, and the Pearson c2 test. Significance was set at P < .05. Results: 60 patients were divided randomly into either celecoxib receiving group or acetaminophen receiving group. The postoperative pain scores in the celecoxib group receiving were significantly lower than those in the acetaminophen receiving group at 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours (P = .078, P = .0012, P = .0211, and P = .011, respectively). The number of patients who didn’t require any analgesics in the celecoxib receiving group was less than that in the acetaminophen receiving group (P =.0186). The average amount of rescue analgesic medication in the celecoxib group (0.6 0.8 dose) was significantly lower than that in the acetaminophen group (1.3 1.0 doses) (P = .002). The Kaplan-Meier curve (KM curve) was indicative of long-term survival of the patients receiving celecoxib compared to those who did not receive any rescue analgesic medication (P = .0055). Conclusions: Celecoxib, as the study reflects, has a significant pre-emptive analgesic effect, thus helpful in reducing the usage of postoperative analgesics after removal of the third molar.
低剂量口服塞来昔布与对乙酰氨基酚对第三磨牙术后疼痛管理的比较:一项随机对照试验(RCT)
目的:比较口服塞来昔布与口服对乙酰氨基酚在下颌第三磨牙手术后的镇痛效果。材料与方法:本研究采用双盲、随机、安慰剂对照的临床试验,对局部麻醉下拔除下颌第三磨牙的患者进行研究。患者随机接受术前口服剂量塞来昔布或对乙酰氨基酚作为预测参数。主要结局参数是通过视觉模拟评分(VAS)在不同时间点评估术后疼痛。次要结局参数为两组患者术后镇痛药的用量。统计分析包括描述性统计、t检验和Pearson c2检验。P < 0.05为显著性。结果:60例患者随机分为塞来昔布治疗组和对乙酰氨基酚治疗组。塞来昔布组术后4、6、8、12 h疼痛评分均显著低于对乙酰氨基酚组(P = 0.078、P = 0.0012、P = 0.0211、P = 0.011)。塞来昔布治疗组不需要任何镇痛药的患者少于对乙酰氨基酚治疗组(P = 0.0186)。塞来昔布组抢救镇痛药平均用量(0.6 ~ 0.8剂)显著低于对乙酰氨基酚组(1.3 ~ 1.0剂)(P = 0.002)。Kaplan-Meier曲线(KM曲线)表明,与未接受任何镇痛药物治疗的患者相比,接受塞来昔布治疗的患者的长期生存(P = 0.0055)。结论:塞来昔布具有明显的先发制人镇痛作用,有助于减少拔除第三磨牙术后镇痛药物的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信