Skip to content

Use of Local Anesthetic during third molar extraction and its effect on the prevention of postoperative pain

Evaluation of Ropivacaine effectiveness for Preventive Analgesia on third molars extraction

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-99s7wv
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2018-11-19
Start date
2013-02-13
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Tooth extraction. Pain.

Interventions

Each subject underwent two surgical procedures on different days to remove their impacted third molars in the morning (to avoid circadian interferences in pain threshold)3. The interval between the su
Drug
E03.091

Sponsors

Universidade Federal de Sergipe
Lead Sponsor
Universidade Federal de Sergipe
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 35 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients who sought ambulatory dental services in the Dentistry Department of Sergipe Federal University (UFS) for bilateral impacted third molars extraction , with ASA I physical status.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Users of illicit or psychotropic drugs, heavy alcohol users and those who reported of hypersensitivity to local anesthetics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or to any other drug that might interfere with pain sensitivityd. Moreover, pregnant and odontophobic patients.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was reported by the volunteer, in the Ropivacaine group it was significantly higher (p <0.001). The pain scores were observed according to the marking of the volunteer on the visual analogue pain scale (VAS). The Lidocaine group recorded significantly higher EVA scores for all periods (p <0.05), with the exception of the latter (p <0.01). The analgesic consumption was higher in the lidocaine group (p <0.05). Regarding adverse effects, five (16.7%) patients in the lidocaine group and four (13.3%) in the ropivacaine group reported nausea. In case of pain, patients received analgesic prescription. The rescue drug was used by 2 (6.7%) patients in each group.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
It was also observed that there was significantly more postoperative bleeding in the Ropivacaine group (p=0.023). Ropivacaine 0.75% presented better results than lidocaine 2% with 1: 100,000 epinephrine in most criteria, except for hemostasis. No side effects or complications.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public Contactklinger Amorim

Universidade Federal de Sergipe

klinger28@hotmail.com+557998479236

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)