ReviewCureus2026
Analgesic Efficacy of Celecoxib Versus Ibuprofen After Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third-molar surgery is commonly associated with acute postoperative pain, for which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used. Celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, may provide effective analgesia while potentially offering improved tolerability compared with conventional nonselective NSAIDs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared celecoxib with ibuprofen following surgical extraction of the impacted mandibular third molars. Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to August 2026. Ten RCTs involving 1,090 patients were included, with 671 patients receiving celecoxib and 419 receiving ibuprofen. Postoperative pain was evaluated at 4-8, 12-16, and 24 hours using the visual analog scale (VAS), total pain relief (TOPAR/TOTPAR), and sum of pain relief and pain intensity difference (SPRID/SPID). No significant differences were observed between celecoxib and ibuprofen at 4-8 or 12-16 hours across any of the pain assessment scales. At 24 hours, celecoxib was associated with significantly lower VAS pain scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.35; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.08; p = 0.01), whereas no significant difference was observed using TOPAR/TOTPAR (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.73; p = 0.05). Rescue analgesic use did not differ significantly between groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25; p = 1.00) and neither did adverse events (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32; p = 0.67). Trial sequential analysis did not provide conclusive evidence of a beneficial effect. Overall, celecoxib and ibuprofen demonstrated broadly comparable analgesic efficacy following third-molar surgery. Although celecoxib may provide a modest reduction in pain intensity at 24 hours, current evidence does not establish consistent overall superiority over ibuprofen.
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.