Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29536205›Full record

Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2018

Clinical evaluation of two dexamethasone regimens in the extractions of impacted third molars-a randomized clinical trial.

Carllini Barroso Vicentini, Juliana Cama Ramacciato, Francisco Carlos Groppo, Rubens Gonçalves Teixeira, Rogério Heládio Lopes Motta

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carllini Barroso VicentiniOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Area, Instituto Tocantinense Presidente Antônio Carlos Porto (ITPAC PORTO), Porto Nacional, TO, Brazil.
Juliana Cama RamacciatoPharmacology, Anesthesiology and Therapeutics Area, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Research Center, Rua José Rocha Junqueira, 13, Campinas, 13045-755 SP, Brazil.
Francisco Carlos GroppoDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Rubens Gonçalves TeixeiraOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Area, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Rogério Heládio Lopes MottaPharmacology, Anesthesiology and Therapeutics Area, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Research Center, Rua José Rocha Junqueira, 13, Campinas, 13045-755 SP, Brazil. rogerio.motta@slmandic.edu.br.
Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the present study was to compare two therapeutic protocols of dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative swelling, pain, and other complications after the extraction of impacted third molars, in a prospective, randomized, crossover, double-blinded clinical trial.

methodsFifty patients with symmetrical impaction of third molars were randomly assigned to two different protocols of dexamethasone for each side. Patients underwent two sessions performed at a 21-day interval. In group 1, patients took 8 mg of dexamethasone orally 1 h before the procedure, and in group 2, 4 mg dexamethasone orally 1 h before and 24 h after the procedure. Surgery duration, volume of local anesthetics, surgical technique, and rescue medication were standardized. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) at predefined times: before operation; immediately after; 1, 2, 4, and 12 h; and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days after operation. The patients were also instructed to take notes of the number of rescue medication tablets taken. Edema and mouth opening were clinically evaluated before surgery and in the postoperative period (second and seventh postoperative days).

resultsThere were no significant differences between groups for VAS scales (p = 0.5048), but the use of rescue medication was significantly lower in group 1 (p = 0.006). None statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between groups in any of the time points for all measurements of edema. However, the mouth opening limitation (DIINC) was bigger (p = 0.0069) for group 1 at 2 days.

conclusionPre-emptive use of different dexamethasone regimens had a beneficial effect against pain, edema, and mouth opening limitation, especially when administered at an 8 mg concentration, which suggests that this protocol may also be efficient for more invasive surgery.

Indexed as

Tooth ExtractionAdministration, OralAdultAnesthetics, LocalBrazilDexamethasoneDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleEdemaFemaleHumansMaleMolar, ThirdPain MeasurementPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainAnesthetics, LocalDexamethasoneDexamethasoneEdemaOral surgeryPain

Identifiers

PMID29536205
OpenAlexW2790585262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.