Trial reportHead & face medicine2025
Diclofenac sodium vs. dexketoprofen trometamol: selecting NSAIDs for managing postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery-a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dental pain management in medically compromised patients: A comprehensive review and proposal of an analgesic ladder.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter surgical procedures involving bone and soft tissue, such as impacted tooth extraction, profen and diclofenac derivatives are commonly prescribed. Diclofenac sodium (DS) and dexketoprofen trometamol (DT), derivatives of diclofenac and profen, exhibit clinical differences from their parent compounds. Despite their widespread use, comparative studies of their effects on postoperative complications remain limited. This randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of DS and DT following impacted tooth extraction.
methodsThis split-mouth, randomized clinical study included healthy individuals aged 18 to 40 years with bilaterally impacted third molars. Left and right teeth were randomly assigned to either the DT or DS group. Participants took 25 mg of DS or 36.9 mg of DT twice daily for 7 days, beginning 1 h before extraction. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively, as well as on days 2 through 7. Trismus was evaluated by the interincisal distance, and edema was anatomically measured preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. The surgical duration and rescue analgesic use were also recorded.
resultsIn total, 35 patients (28 women, 7 men) aged 18 to 31 years (mean, 21.31 ± 3.19 years) participated. The mean operation duration was 12.94 ± 2.26 min for the DT group and 13.26 ± 2.19 min for the DS group (p > 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups regarding pain, edema, or trismus development (p > 0.05). However, from days 2 to 7, the DS group exhibited a greater reduction in edema than did the DT group (p < 0.05). Additionally, the DS group required 10% more frequent use of rescue analgesics than the DT group.
conclusionFollowing impacted tooth extraction, administering DT during the initial days-when pain is more intense and the inflammatory response is developing-followed by DS in the later recovery phase may enhance postoperative comfort.
trial registrationThis clinical trial was retrospectively registered on 03.10.2023 with the number TCTR20231003006.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.