Comparison of oral versus sublingual piroxicam during postoperative pain management after lower third molar extraction

In this study, 53 patients received piroxicam, administered orally or sublingually, after undergoing removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, during two separate appointments. This study used a randomized, blind, cross-over protocol. Objective and subjective parameters were recorded for comparison of postoperative results for 7 days after surgery. Patients treated with oral or sublingual piroxicam reported low postoperative pain scores. The patients who received piroxicam orally took a similar average amount of analgesic rescue medication compared with patients who received piroxicam sublingually (p > 0.05). Patients exhibited similar values for mouth opening measured just before surgery and immediately following suture removal 7 days later (p > 0.05), and showed no significant differences between routes of piroxicam administration for swelling control during the second or seventh postoperative days (p > 0.05). In summary, pain, trismus and swelling after lower third molar extraction, independent of surgical difficulty, could be controlled by piroxicam 20 mg administered orally or sublingually and no significant differences were observed between the route of delivery used in this study.

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal

Objective: This study compared the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (A200) and 0.5% bupivacaine (B200), both with 1: 200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. Study design: Fifty patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia either with A200 or B200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossover manner. Time to onset, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated. Results: A statistically significant difference between the time to onset of A200 (1.66 +/- 0.13 minutes) and B200 (2.51 +/- 0.21 minutes) was found (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of analgesia, whether the patient was subjected to osteotomy or not, regardless of the local anesthetic used (3 to 4 hours; P < .05). However, when patients received B200 they experienced a statistically significant longer period of anesthesia on the soft tissues as compared with when they had received A200 (around 5 hours and 4 hours, respectively, P < .05). The surgeon`s rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal for both anesthetics. In the surgeries with osteotomy, the comparison between A200 and B200 showed statistically significant differences in the diastolic (64 mm Hg and 68 mm Hg, respectively, P = .001) and mean arterial pressure (86 mm Hg and 89 mm Hg, respectively, P = .031) when data from all the surgical phases were pooled. Additionally, the mouth opening at the suture removal was statistically different for A200 and B200 solutions (91.90% +/- 3.00% and 88.57% +/- 2.38% of the preoperative measure, respectively) when surgeries required bone removal (P < .05). Conclusions: In comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine, 4% articaine (both with 1: 200,000 epinephrine) provided a shorter time to onset and comparable hemostasis and postoperative pain control with a shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia in lower third molar removal.