ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon Accuracy in Anticipating Supplemental Opioid Use Following Third Molar Extraction.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Accurately identifying patients who will require opioids after third molar extraction could improve pain management while supporting opioid stewardship. This study evaluated surgeon accuracy in predicting supplemental opioid use following treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Methods: Patients (N=85) undergoing third molar extraction were treated with a standardized analgesic regimen of ibuprofen+acetaminophen, with supplemental opioid if needed. Four surgeons independently reviewed preoperative radiographs, assessed surgical difficulty using the Pederson scale, and rated the likelihood of supplemental opioid use on a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The relationship between surgeon ratings and postoperative opioid use was evaluated using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: Seventeen patients used supplemental opioid analgesics. Inter-rater reliability among surgeons was moderate (ICC3=0.606, 95%CI: 0.505-0.700), while reliability of the average rating across surgeons was good (ICC3k = 0.860, 95% CI: 0.804-0.903). Median surgeon rating was not associated with postoperative opioid use (OR: 0.800, 95% CI: 0.414-1.51, p=0.496) and demonstrated poor discrimination (AUC: 0.551, 95% CI: 0.392-0.710). Surgeon ratings were positively associated with Pederson score (β=0.073, 95%CI: 0.050-0.096; p<0.001). Conclusions: Surgeons demonstrated moderate agreement, but these assessments did not accurately identify patients who ultimately required supplemental opioids. Surgeon judgments appeared to be influenced by anticipated surgical difficulty. Practical Implications: Clinicians should follow current recommendations against routine "just-in-case" opioid prescribing after third molar extraction. Future studies should focus on identifying clinical and biological predictors of inadequate analgesic response to NSAIDs to support individualized pain management strategies.
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.