Comparison of Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Efficacy of Selective and Non-Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Dental Implant Surgery

• Autores: Cansu Basegmez-Zeren, Tayfun Özdemi, Zihni Cuneyt Karabuda, Nilüfer Bölükbas, Ali Aral
• Localización: Journal of periodontology, ISSN 0022-3492, Vol. 78, Nº. 12, 2007, págs. 2284-2288
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Comparison of Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Efficacy of Selective and Non-Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Dental Implant Surgery Zihni Cuneyt Karabuda,* Nilufer Bolukbasi,* Ali Aral,* Cansu Basegmez-Zeren,* and Tayfun Ozdemir* *Department of Oral Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.

    Correspondence: Dr. Zihni Cuneyt Karabuda, Department of Oral Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Capa 34390, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: zcuneyt@istanbul.edu.tr.

    Background: The analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of tenoxicam and meloxicam were evaluated in this double-masked, randomized, prospective study by analyzing pain scores and the need for rescue-analgesic agents following dental implant surgery.

    Methods: One hundred patients, in whom 241 dental implants were placed, were divided into two groups. For 4 days beginning the day before surgery, the first group received meloxicam, 15 mg daily, and the second group received tenoxicam, 20 mg daily, followed by 1 hour preoperatively and for 2 days thereafter. Pain intensity was rated by the subjects based on a visual analog scale on the operation day and on the following 6 days. The patients were recommended to use a rescue analgesic if the pain score was ≥4. Postoperative complications, such as edema, hematoma, infection, severe pain, paresthesia, or gastrointestinal complaints, were also noted.

    Results: Statistical analysis revealed that 54% of patients in the tenoxicam group and 66% of patients in the meloxicam group used rescue analgesics on day 1. However, the difference between the groups was not significant (χ2 = 1.05; P = 0.30). The relationship between the reduction of consumption and time was not significant in either group (Z = 0.84; P = 0.40). The relationship between the use of rescue analgesics and the number of implants placed was not significant. Among patients who reported postoperative complications, there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (χ2 = 0.04; P = 0.84).

    Conclusion: Meloxicam and tenoxicam exhibited a similar analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy in the present investigation.

    KEYWORDS: COX-2 inhibitors, dental implants, NSAIDs, pain, surgery Cited by Colman McGrath, Otto Lam and Niklaus Lang. (2012) An evidence-based review of patient-reported outcome measures in dental implant research among dentate subjects. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 39, 193-201.

    Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012.

    CrossRef Francesco Cairo, Ignacio Sanz, Paula Matesanz, Michele Nieri and Umberto Pagliaro. (2012) Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 39:10.1111/jcpe.2012.39.issue-s12, 81-107.

    Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012.

    CrossRef Mario Alberto Isiordia-Espinoza, Martín Sánchez-Prieto, Francisco Tobías-Azúa, Juan Gerardo Reyes-García and Vinicio Granados-Soto. (2012) Pre-emptive analgesia with the combination of tramadol plus meloxicam for third molar surgery: a pilot study. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

    Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012.

    CrossRef GM Arantes, VMN Arantes, HA Ashmawi and IP Posso. (2009) Tenoxicam controls pain without altering orthodontic movement of maxillary canines. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 12:10.1111/ocr.2009.12.issue-1, 14-19.

    Online publication date: 1-Feb-2009.

    CrossRef