Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39900116›Full record

Trial reportJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons2025

Does Liposomal Bupivacaine Reduce Postoperative Pain Following Third Molar Extractions? A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Simon Youn, Katherine Scheker, Samuel Sheridan, Colin Hayashi, Trevor A Pickering, John Costandi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Simon YounResident, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: simonyyo@usc.edu.
Katherine SchekerResident, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Samuel SheridanResident, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Colin HayashiDental Student, Department of Dentistry, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA.
Trevor A PickeringStatistician, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
John CostandiProfessor, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a long-lasting local anesthetic providing analgesia for several days. The current literature examining the efficacy of LB in pain management following third molar extractions remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain management between LB and standard bupivacaine (SB) in mandibular third molar extractions. STUDY

designA double-blinded randomized controlled trial of subjects undergoing bilateral mandibular third molar extractions at our institution from 2022 to 2024 was conducted using a split-mouth study design. Subjects were excluded if they received additional mandibular teeth extractions, were unable to complete the questionnaire, or had medical contraindications. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was postsurgical local anesthetic agent, and the sides of mouth were randomly assigned to LB or SB. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): Primary outcome was postoperative pain on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS), and the mean cumulative pain rating via area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and ibuprofen or acetaminophen consumption. COVARIATES: Demographics, procedure time, preoperative and perioperative local anesthetics used, and procedural difficulty coded as nonsurgical or surgical were collected. ANALYSES: We used mixed-effects models to compare the NRS scores during each time period and paired t-tests to compare AUC values. Statistical tests included 95% CIs with alpha = 0.05.

resultsThe study sample included 72 subjects (mean age 25.8, SD: 9). Pain was lower in the LB versus SB group on surgery day (NRS difference -0.75; P = .002) until the morning of postoperative day 2 (-0.68, P = .003). When limiting the analysis to bilateral surgical extractions, it was statistically significant until the morning of postoperative day 3 (-0.61, P = .02). AUC analysis showed cumulative pain reduction for the LB group in comparison to the SB group through all 4 postoperative days for the overall cohort (average AUC

conclusionLB modestly reduces pain following third molar extractions, with this difference more pronounced following surgical extractions. This suggests that LB may be more beneficial in complex extractions and greater pain-inducing surgeries.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, LocalBupivacaineMolar, ThirdPostoperative PainTooth ExtractionAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLiposomesMalePain MeasurementYoung AdultAnesthetics, LocalBupivacaineLiposomes

Identifiers

PMID39900116
PMCPMC12049260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.