Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of complementary and alternative treatments on postoperative pain following lower third molar surgeries., Methods: A comprehensive search of Electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, and Cochrane Library) and grey literature was conducted up until May 2022. Randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of acupuncture, ozone therapy, laser (LLLT), drainage tube, kinesio-taping, ice therapy, and compressions on pain after LTM surgeries were included. The estimated mean differences (MD) for alternative therapies were pooled using the frequentist approach to random-model network meta-analysis NMA., Results: Eighty-two papers were included in the qualitative analysis; 33 of them were included in the quantitative analyzes. NMA revealed that drainage tube and kinesio-taping were superior in controlling pain 24-hours postoperatively than no-treatment. At 48-hours follow-up, kinesio-taping and LLLT more effective than placebo and drainage tube; and kinesio-taping and LLLT were superior to no treatment. At 72 h postoperatively, ozone therapy was superior to placebo; and drainage tube, kinesio-taping, and LLLT were better than no treatment. At 7-days follow-up, ozone and LLLT were superior to placebo; and LLLT and kinesio-taping were superior to no treatment. The SUCRA-ranking placed drainage tube as top-ranking intervention at 48-hours (98.2%) and 72-hours (96%) follow-ups, and ozone (83.5%) at 7-days follow-up., Conclusion: The study findings suggest that these alternative and complementary therapies may be useful in reducing postoperative pain after LTM surgeries, and may offer advantages when combined to traditional pain management methods., Clinical Relevance: Non-pharmacological therapies are gaining popularity among healthcare professionals and patients. This study found that some of these therapies, specifically kinesio-taping and drainage tube were effective in controlling postoperative pain after third molar surgeries. These findings have important implications for clinical practice, as they highlight the potential benefits of incorporating these therapies into postoperative pain management plans., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To compare, among patients undergoing third molar surgeries, whether the use or omission of sutures improves postoperative clinical parameters., Method: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials in humans. The steps of this review were conducted following the PRISMA protocol. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the revised Cochrane tool (RoB 2). The RevMan software was employed for meta-analyses, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE., Result: A total of seven articles were included in the systematic review; however, only one article quantitatively measured bleeding, rendering meta-analysis for this outcome unfeasible. The group of patients in whom sutures were not used presented lower pain and edema on the first day (respectively: MD - 1.08; 95% CI - 1.35 to - 0.81; MD - 1.23; 95% CI - 2.34 to - 0.11) and second day (respectively: MD - 0.50; 95% CI - 0.83 to - 0.17; MD - 10.66; 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.16) postoperatively, compared to the group where sutures were employed. The group of patients who received sutures exhibited increased trismus on the first day postoperatively (MD 1.04; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41)., Conclusion: The omission of postoperative sutures in third molar surgeries appears to favor pain and edema outcomes within the first 24 h after the procedure, as well as trismus within the same timeframe., Clinical Relevance: Despite the suture being the standard conduct in tooth extractions. The omission of sutures in third molar extractions may favor inflammatory outcomes of pain, edema, and trismus in the immediate postoperative period., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of Erich arch bars (EAB) and intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in reducing mandibular fractures during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)., Methods: A total of 28 patients with mandibular fractures were randomly allocated to either the EAB group or the IMF screws group. The study evaluated various parameters including occlusal stability, complications, duration of application, oral hygiene status, quality of life, and patient characteristics., Results: The study found no significant differences in occlusal stability between the EAB and IMF screw groups. However, the application and removal times were longer for EAB compared to IMF screws. The EAB group showed a higher presence of biofilm on teeth, indicating poorer oral hygiene status compared to the IMF screws group. In terms of quality of life, patients in the EAB group reported worse results in the "handicap" domain at the 15th postoperative day. No significant differences were observed in other quality-of-life parameters. Patient characteristics were well distributed between the two groups, enhancing the reliability of the results., Conclusion: Both EAB and IMF screws demonstrated comparable occlusal stability for minimally displaced mandibular fractures. However, IMF screws offered advantages such as shorter application and removal times, better oral hygiene maintenance, and potentially improved quality of life in the "handicap" domain. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to validate these findings and explore the stability of IMF methods in cases requiring postoperative malocclusion correction or prolonged IMF., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)