Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2023 Jan 11;102(4):391–401. doi: 10.1177/00220345221139230

Acute Postoperative Pain Due to Dental Extraction in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

A Miroshnychenko 1, S Ibrahim 2, M Azab 2, Y Roldan 1, JPD Martinez 1, D Tamilselvan 2, L He 2, JW Little 3, O Urquhart 4, M Tampi 5, DE Polk 6, PA Moore 6, EV Hersh 7, B Claytor 8, A Carrasco-Labra 9, R Brignardello-Petersen 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10031629  PMID: 36631957

Abstract

This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85–1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17–1.45), and naproxen 400–440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07–1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.

Keywords: evidence-based dentistry, pharmacology, oral surgery, systematic review, public health dentistry, acute pain

Background

North America is amid an opioid crisis, which is a leading public health and safety concern. In dentistry, many patients are prescribed opioids for the first time to manage acute postoperative pain after dental impaction surgery, which often results in prescription of an excess number of opioid pills, thereby increasing the risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction (Denisco et al. 2011; Maughan et al. 2016; Moore et al. 2016).

Acute dental pain includes pain from both surgical and nonsurgical dental conditions. Of over half a million dental patient visits between 2011 and 2015, 29% of prescribed opioids exceeded the recommended morphine equivalent for appropriate management of acute pain, and over half exceeded the recommended days of supply (Suda et al. 2020).

The current clinical practice guidelines lack evidence-based guidance on effective management of acute dental pain (Herzig et al. 2018). The National Academies’ report, titled Framing Opioid Prescribing Guidelines for Acute Pain, highlighted the need to formalize evidence-based alternatives to opioid analgesics in a clinical practice guideline (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al. 2019).

The objective of this systematic review (SR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the management of pain subsequent to simple and surgical tooth extraction, as well as pain associated with pulpitis or its complications. This SR was conducted to inform the 2022 evidence-based clinical practice guidelines produced by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs, the ADA Science & Research Institute (ADASRI), and the University of Pittsburgh’s and the University of Pennsylvania’s Schools of Dental Medicine in partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the management of acute dental pain.

Methods

We report this SR following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for SR and NMAs (see Appendix Table 1) (Hutton et al. 2015). We did not register this SR but followed preestablished methodology outlined in the plan for guideline development and used eligibility criteria determined by the recommendation questions addressed by the guideline panel.

Eligibility Criteria

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including individuals ages 12 and above undergoing simple or surgical tooth extraction or affected by symptomatic pulpitis or its complications that compared 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations against one another or placebo. We limited the literature to peer-reviewed articles and English language.

The interventions and dosages were selected by the guideline panel as the most commonly prescribed and relevant to acute dental pain management after a prioritization exercise that considered more than 30 different drugs as monotherapies or combinations (Moore et al. 2006, 2018). Similar to Cochrane Library overviews of multiple analgesics, a follow-up time point of 6 h was selected to eliminate distortions of findings (i.e., summed pain intensity difference [SPID], total pain relief [TOTPAR], proportion of rescue medications) when comparing short-duration (4–6 h) and long-duration (8–12 h) agents (Moore et al. 2011). The outcomes included pain relief at 6 h, TOTPAR at 6 h, SPID at 6 h, global efficacy rating at 6 h, proportion of participants receiving rescue analgesia at 6 h, and adverse effects (central nervous system and gastrointestinal) at the longest reported follow-up time point. See Appendix Table 2 for a list of included interventions and outcomes.

To establish the aforementioned eligibility criteria, the guideline panel relied on peer-reviewed literature regarding dental pharmacology, professional experience, a national survey of US oral surgeons of drug selection and prescribing behaviors, and selective randomized clinical trials of analgesic efficacy following third molar extractions (Moore and Hersh 2013; Hersh et al. 2020; American Dental Association 2021). All decisions regarding the eligibility criteria for drug/dose selection and time points were made with the consensus of the panel.

Information Sources

We performed searches in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 21, 2020. See Appendix Table 3 for a sample search strategy.

Study Selection

Using a systematic review software (Covidence), pairs of reviewers, following training and calibration exercises, independently screened all titles and abstracts, followed by full texts of trials that were identified as potentially eligible. A third reviewer adjudicated conflicts.

Data Collection

For each eligible trial, pairs of reviewers, following training and calibration exercises, extracted data independently using a standardized, pilot-tested data extraction form. Reviewers collected information on trial characteristics (i.e., design), patient characteristics (i.e., age, gender, country), and outcomes of interest. Reviewers resolved discrepancies by discussion and, when necessary, with adjudication by a third party.

Risk of Bias within Individual Studies

For each eligible trial and outcome, pairs of reviewers, following training and calibration exercises, independently used a modification of the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Reviewers resolved discrepancies by discussion and, when necessary, with adjudication by a third party.

Data Synthesis

Treatments were grouped into nodes that could include more than 1 dose for a monotherapy or a combination, according to the eligibility criteria listed above. The comparator/reference for all networks was selected to be the intervention/placebo reported in the highest number of studies.

We summarized the effect of interventions on dichotomous outcomes (i.e., proportion of participants receiving rescue analgesia and adverse effects) using odds ratios (ORs) and risk differences (RDs), as well as their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes (i.e., pain relief, TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating), we used the mean difference (MD) (between pre- and postoperative scores) and corresponding 95% CI. When studies reported the same outcome using a scale with a different range, we converted data to the scale range most commonly reported before conducting analyses (Thorlund et al. 2011). When standard deviation (SD) was not reported, we calculated SD using standard error, confidence intervals, means, and sample sizes. In rare instances, when neither of the beforementioned statistics were reported, we imputed SD by choosing a median SD of 3 studies with similar means (Higgins and Green 2011).

We performed frequentist NMAs for outcomes with sufficient data. If data were insufficient for an NMA but adequate for a pairwise meta-analysis (i.e., at least 2 studies), we conducted pairwise meta-analyses comparing specific interventions. All analyses were completed using a random-effects model and weighting studies according to the inverse of their variance.

We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 (R Studio). We used the package netmeta (Rucker 2021) to conduct NMAs and the packages meta (Schwarzer 2015) and metafor (Viechtbauer 2021) to conduct pairwise meta-analyses.

Certainty of the Evidence

We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for NMAs (Puhan et al. 2014; Brignardello-Petersen et al. 2018; Brignardello-Petersen et al. 2019). The GRADE domains included risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, imprecision, transitivity, and incoherence (i.e., agreement between direct and indirect evidence). Two methodologists rated each domain for each outcome and comparison independently, resolving discrepancies by discussion. We used a minimally contextualized approach to rate our certainty that there was an important effect (Zeng et al. 2021), using a threshold of 10% of the length of the scale as the minimally important difference for continuous outcomes and baseline risk for dichotomous outcomes.

Presentation of Results

To facilitate interpretation of results of dichotomous outcomes, we calculated absolute effects (95% CI) per 100 participants. To draw conclusions, we classified interventions in groups from the most to the least effective by considering the estimates of effect and the certainty of the evidence (Brignardello-Petersen et al. 2020).

Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were not planned.

Results

After screening 4,716 titles and abstracts, we included 85 unique RCTs reported in 82 publications (Fig.). Reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening stage (n = 776) are presented the Figure.

Figure.

Figure.

Open in a new tab

Study identification and selection flowchart.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Characteristics of the included studies are reported in Table 1. All studies were parallel group RCTs. Most studies were conducted in the United States (75%). Number of participants ranged from 31 to 540. Mean age of participants across studies varied from 13.5 (SD = 2.64) to 40.7 (SD not reported). Interventions were administered orally. Surgical tooth extraction was the type of extraction performed in all included studies. Studies assessing the interventions of interest in patients with symptomatic pulpitis or its complications were not found.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies.

Study ID Year Study Design Country Number of Participants Randomized Age (y) Overall, Mean/Range (SD/SE) Female Gender (%) Type of Extraction Type of Tooth (Report All Information Available in Study) Interventions
Cooper3848 1988 Parallel group United States 80 Mean: 22.60 (SD = 4.31) 65 Surgical tooth extraction Not specified Ibuprofen 400 mg (fast acting or acid), placebo/no treatment
Cooper3846 1981 Parallel group United States 116 Mean: 23.19 (SD = NR) 59.46 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 650 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour569 1996 Parallel group United Kingdom 123 Mean: 25.37 (SD = 6.10) 68.29 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 500 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Gay3155 1996 Parallel group Spain 80 Mean: 23.70 (SD = 4.59) 53.66 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Kiersch2412 1994 Parallel group United States 134 Mean: 23.64 (SD = 5.06) 58 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, naproxen sodium 440 mg, placebo/no treatment
Dolci3477 1994 Parallel group Italy 148 Mean: 27.54 (SD = NR) 61 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour573 2003 Parallel group United Kingdom 94 Mean: 25.03 (SD = 5.05) 69.35 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Solid acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Mehlisch1741 2010 Parallel group United States 440 Mean: 20.38 (SD = 3.61) 62.42 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg/acetaminophen 1,000 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3844 2019 Parallel group United States 385 Mean: 19.0 (SD = 2.8) 53.7 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, naproxen sodium 440 mg, placebo/no treatment
Mehlisch1743 2002 Parallel group United States 300 Mean: 26.4 (SD = NR) NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Conventional ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen arginate 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour572_1 1991 Parallel group England 95 Mean: 25.01 (SD = 6.84) 59.38 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Soft gelatin ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen tablet 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour572_2 1991 Parallel group England 92 Mean: 25.67 (SD = 4.64) 78.13 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Soluble ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen tablet 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Zelenakas10 2004 Parallel group United States 101 Mean: 22.4 (SD = 4.51) 64.7 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Weiser166 2018 Parallel group United States 279 Mean: 19.52 (SD = 1.91) 65.7 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen (acid) 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Al-Sukhun4526 2012 Parallel group Finland 98 Mean: 30.29 (SD = 7.40) 47.17 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Malmstrom2466 2002 Parallel group United States 90 Mean: 22.50 (SD = 6.72) 66.7 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Matthews1789 1984 Parallel group United Kingdom 36 NR NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Gazal3152 2017 Parallel group Saudi Arabia 80 Mean: 40.7 (SD = NR) NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg
Kubitzek2309 2003 Parallel group Germany 162 Mean: 26.0 (SD = NR) NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Malmstrom2465 2004 Parallel group United States 100 Mean: 23.30 (SD = 5.0) 56 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Qi1102 2012 Parallel group United States 540 Mean: 18.41 (SD = 2.09) 54.8 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the upper or lower jaw Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, placebo/no treatment
Forbes3244 1986 Parallel group United States 86 Mean: 21.61 (SD = NR) 48 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Fricke3213 2002 Parallel group United States 100 Mean: 21.20 (SD = 4.24) 50 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3827 1989 Parallel group United States 184 Mean: 22.85 (SD = 4.72) 66 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3850 1996 Parallel group United States 97 Mean: 25.01 (SD = NR) 53 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molar of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Melzack1714 1985 Parallel group Canada 60 Mean: 34.0 (SD = NR) NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Tong767 2012 Parallel group United States 104 Mean: 22.49 (SD = 3.62) 59 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Daniels3639 2011 Parallel group United States 108 Mean: 21.5 (SD = NR) 59.7 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Chang3872 2004 Parallel group United States 150 Mean: 22.0 (SD = NR) 60 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the upper or lower jaw Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, placebo/no treatment
Christensen4349 2018 Parallel group United States 80 Mean: 19.43 (SD = 2.15) 72 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Desjardins3595 2007 Parallel group United States 152 Mean: 21.98 (SD = 4.06) 65.6 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour574 1999 Parallel group United Kingdom 80 Mean: 25.43 (SD = 5.15) 68.29 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Morrison2161 1999 Parallel group United States 101 Mean: 18.25 (SD = 1.96) 52.9 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Ziccardi403 2000 Parallel group United States 76 Mean: 24.91 (SD = 5.56) 67.3 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Moore2197 1998 Parallel group United States 57 Range: 18–70 NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3827 1989 Parallel group United States 184 Mean: 23.13 (SE = 0.60) 66 Surgical tooth extraction Ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Yue37_1 2013 Parallel group United States 300 Mean: 23.08 (SD = 3.79) 56 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Fast-dissolving acetaminophen 1,000 mg, fast-dissolving acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Yue37_2 2013 Parallel group United States 401 Mean: 20.4 (SD = 2.80) 63 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Fast-dissolving acetaminophen 1,000 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, placebo/no treatment
Chang3869 2001 Parallel group United States 211 Mean: 20.7 (SD = 4.67) 70.6 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the upper or lower jaw Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Bakshi4253 1994 Parallel group Germany 162 Mean: 27.41 (SD = NR) 42.5 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Chang3870 2004 Parallel group United States 125 Mean: 22.0 (SD = 4.3) 54 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, placebo/no treatment
DanielsFthi 2009 Parallel group United Kingdom 321 Mean: 21.3 (SD = 3.99) 61.3 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen/poloxamer 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, sodium ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Hersh2868 1993 Parallel group United States 100 NR NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Mehlisch1742 2010 Parallel group United States 234 Mean: 20.8 (SD = 3.1) 73.13 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg/acetaminophen 1,000 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Schou630 1998 Parallel group Denmark 105 Mean: 26.23 (SD = 6.04) 46.9 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Malmstrom2464 2006 Parallel group United States 40 Mean: 23.0 (SD = 4.42) 85 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, placebo, active placebo
Mehlisch1736 1995 Parallel group United States 240 Mean: 24.99 (SD = 7.33) 64 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Kyselovic2275 2020 Parallel group Czech Republic 351 Mean: 28.0 (SD = 7.83) 58.9 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Ibuprofen lysinate 400 mg, ibuprofen acid 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cheung4381 2007 Parallel group United States 114 Mean: 21.6 (SD = 4.6) 52.6 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Kellstein2518 2020 Parallel group United States 394 Mean: 18.1 (SD = 1.95) 51.1 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 250 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 300 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Schwartz622 2007 Parallel group United States 31 Mean: 23.0 (SD = 5.98) 20 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Ahlstrom4580 1993 Parallel group Sweden 62 Mean: 25.33 (SD = NR) 53.13 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Fricke3215 1993 Parallel group United States 201 Mean: 23.28 (SD = 4.91) 65 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, naproxen sodium 440 mg, placebo/no treatment
Forbes3277 1991 Parallel group United States 76 Mean: 23.37 (SD = NR) 65 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3835 1991 Parallel group United States 120 Mean: 23.06 (SD = NR) 69.23 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, placebo/no treatment
VanDyke685 2004 Parallel group United States 311 Mean: 24.44 (SD = 5.22) 54.3 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Oxycodone 5 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3840 1988 Parallel group United States 107 Mean: 25.1 (SD = NR) 80.56 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, placebo/no treatment
Giglio3103 1990 Parallel group United States 79 Mean: 22.7 (SD = NR) 84.61 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Forbes3245 1990 Parallel group United States 140 Mean: 22.88 (SD = NR) 59 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 600 mg, acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Chang3873 2005 Parallel group United States 210 Mean: 18.87 (SD = 3.89) 55 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Moller2216 2000 Parallel group Denmark 242 Mean: 25.07 (SD = 3.8) 55 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen effervescent 1,000 mg, acetaminophen tablet 1,000 mg, effervescent placebo, tablet placebo
Black4105 2002 Parallel group United States 298 Mean: 21.43 (SD = NR) 55.56 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the upper and lower jaw Ibuprofen arginate 400 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
McQuay1759 1996 Parallel group United Kingdom 41 Mean: 13.50 (SD = 2.64) 54.55 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Bentley4153 1987 Parallel group Canada 79 Mean: 24.61 (SD = 9.55) 56.09 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Skoglund418 1991 Parallel group Norway 65 Mean: 24.55 (SD = 6.79) 50 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Malmstrom2468 2005 Parallel group United States 202 Mean: 23.08 (SD = 5.71) 64 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Searle608_1 2020 Parallel group United States 393 Mean: 19.38 (SD = 2.12) 59.3 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Fixed-dose ibuprofen 250 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, placebo/no treatment
Searle608_2 2020 Parallel group United States 123 Mean: 21.8 (SD = 3.82) 54.9 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Fixed-dose ibuprofen 250 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, placebo/no treatment
Malmstrom2467 1999 Parallel group United States 91 Mean: 23.0 (SD = 4.2) 70 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Mehlisch1737 1984 Parallel group United States 113 Mean: 29.77 (SD = NR) 55.17 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Cooper3841 1982 Parallel group United States 125 Mean: 23.55 (SD = NR) 63.41 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Jain2621 1986 Parallel group United States 96 Mean: 23 (SD = 4.95) 53.06 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Dionne3556 1994 Parallel group United States 76 Mean: 29.08 (SD = NR) 48.15 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 650 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Hersh2859 1993 Parallel group United States 44 Mean: 29.46 (SD = NR) 18.75 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo
Olson1334 2001 Parallel group Puerto Rico 172 Mean: 22.66 (SD = NR) 68.7 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Seymour575 1998 Parallel group United Kingdom 146 Mean: 25.0 (SD = 2.84) 47.37 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Sunshine287 1986 Parallel group Puerto Rico 91 Mean: 22.36 (SD = NR) 80 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 650 mg, acetaminophen 650 mm/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Hersh2863 2000 Parallel group United States 149 Mean: 23.21 (SD = 4.55) 69.5 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Forbes3280 1990 Parallel group United States 59 Mean: 22.00 (SD = NR) 74 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 600 mg/codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Akural4552 2009 Parallel group Finland 38 Mean: 24.0 (SD = 2.43) 61 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Acetaminophen 1,000 mg, placebo/no treatment
Desjardins3593 1984 Parallel group United States 80 Range: 18–68 NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Moore2191 1987 Parallel group United States 63 Mean: 24.12 (SD = NR) 48.48 Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars of the lower jaw Codeine 60 mg, placebo/no treatment
Quiding1092 1984 Parallel group Finland 92 Mean: 26.32 (SD = 5.26) NR Surgical tooth extraction Partially or completely impacted third molars Codeine 60 mg, acetaminophen 500 mg, acetaminophen 1,000 mg
Squires348 1981 Parallel group Canada 61 Mean: 28.14 (SD = 10.12) NR Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 400 mg, placebo/no treatment
Daniels3640 2018 Parallel group New Zealand and United States 296 Mean: 24.97 (SD = NR) 62.73 Surgical tooth extraction Impacted third molars Ibuprofen 292.5 mg/acetaminophen 975 mg, acetaminophen 975 mg, placebo/no treatment
Open in a new tab

NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.

Risk of Bias in Included Studies

Appendix Tables 4 to 9 present the assessment of risk of bias of the included RCTs for each outcome. The domains in which most of the RCTs were judged at high risk of bias were missing outcome data and selection of reported results. Overall, 9 of 85 RCTs were judged at low or probably low risk of bias.

Effects of the Interventions

Table 2 presents a summary of the effects of interventions on pain outcomes. Appendix Tables 10 and 11 summarize the effect of the interventions on adverse effects. Appendix Figures 1 to 21.6 and Appendix Tables 12 to 28 include network plots and forest plots of pairwise meta-analyses for all outcomes, as well as detailed relative and absolute effect estimates from the NMAs and the certainty of evidence for all comparisons and outcomes. All 85 RCTs were included in at least 1 of the 5 NMAs.

Table 2.

Summary of Benefit Outcomes Compared with Placebo (No Treatment).

Characteristic Pain Relief TOTPAR SPID Global Efficacy Rating Rescue Analgesia
Time point 6 h 6 h 6 h 6 h 6 h
Scale 0 (none) to 4 (complete) a (0–24): higher better b 18 points: higher better c 0 (poor) to 4 (excellent) a
Thresholds −0.4, 0.4 −2.4, 2.4 −1.8, 1.8 −0.4, 0.4 −8, 8
Placebo d 0.62 4.1 0.345 0.69 80 per 100
Ibuprofen 200–400 mg plus acetaminophen 500–1,000 mg 1.68 (1.06 to 2.31) 11.07 (8.23 to 13.91) 4.41 (5.78 to 3.04) — −55.60 (−70.27 to −31.22)
Oxycodone 5 mg or codeine 60 mg 0.10 (−0.06 to 0.25) e 1.13 (0.17 to 2.09) e 0.78 (0.02 to 1.55) 0.23 (−0.14 to 0.61) −3.64 (−20.49 to 7.57)
Acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg 1.19 (0.85 to 1.54) 7.91 (6.49 to 9.32) 5.54 (5.26 to 6.02) 1.76 (1.35 to 2.18) −45.18 (−62.93 to −22.10)
Ibuprofen 400 mg (fast acting or acid) 1.31 (1.17 to 1.45) 8.65 (7.82 to 9.48) 5.58 (4.85 to 6.31) 1.47 (1.27 to 1.68) −43.01 (−49.50 to −36.02)
Tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg 0.01 (−0.34 to 0.36) e — — — —
Acetaminophen 500–1,000 mg 0.42 (0.23 to 0.62) 4.20 (3.30 to 5.09) 2.95 (2.31 to 3.60) 0.85 (0.65 to 1.06) −24.00 (−32.02 to −16.30)
Acetaminophen 600–650 mg plus codeine 60 mg 0.49 (0.27 to 0.71) 5.03 (4.04 to 6.03) 2.92 (2.32 to 3.53) e 0.98 (0.72 to 1.25) −21.20 (−32.13 to −11.10) e
Naproxen 400–440 mg 1.44 (1.07 to 1.80) 8.47 (6.15 to 10.79) 5.27 (3.50 to 7.03) e — −51.49 (−64.71 to −33.31)
Ibuprofen 200 mg plus hydrocodone 5 mg — — — — —
Hydrocodone 5 mg plus acetaminophen 300–325 mg — — — — —
Open in a new tab

Empty cells: there was no evidence for the specific intervention.

SPID, sum of pain intensity differences; TOTPAR, total pain relief.

a

We used this scale range as it was the most reported scale for this outcome among the included studies.

b

The range of possible scores ranged from 0 to 24.

c

The range of possible scores ranged from −6 to 12, a total length of 18 points.

d

The expected risk of each outcome with placebo is reported in the gray row. Numbers in the colored cells are the estimated mean differences (95% confidence interval [CI]) or risk differences (95% CI) per 100 patients when compared to placebo.

e

The best estimate of effect was obtained from direct evidence.

Benefit Outcomes
High/Moderate-Certainty Evidence Low/Very Low-Certainty Evidence
Among the best Better than placebo and some alternatives May be better than placebo and some alternatives
Intermediate Better than placebo, but no better than any alternatives May be better than placebo, but no better than any alternatives
Among the worst No better than placebo May be no better than placebo
Open in a new tab

Pain relief

Fifty-six studies including 9,095 participants were included in the NMA for pain relief. Using a scale from 0 to 4, where higher scores represent more pain relief, the interventions classified as among the most effective for this outcome were (effect estimates in reference to placebo) as follows: ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (MD, 1.68; 95% 95% CI, 1.06−2.31; moderate certainty), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MD, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85−1.54; moderate certainty), and ibuprofen 400 mg (fast acting or acid) (MD, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17−1.45; moderate certainty). There was no convincing evidence that any of the other interventions were different from placebo for this outcome.

Totpar

Forty-four studies including 7,282 participants were included in the NMA for TOTPAR. Using a scale from 0 to 24, where higher scores represent more total pain relief, the interventions classified as among the most effective for this outcome were (effect estimates in reference to placebo) as follows: ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (MD, 11.07; 95% CI, 8.23−13.9; moderate certainty), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MD, 7.91; 95% CI, 6.49−9.32; moderate certainty), ibuprofen 400 mg (fast acting or acid) (MD, 8.65; 95% CI, 7.82−9.48; moderate certainty), and naproxen 400 to 440 mg (MD, 8.47; 95% CI, 6.15−10.79; moderate certainty). Interventions that were more effective than placebo but less effective than the interventions above were acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (MD, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.30−5.09; moderate certainty) and acetaminophen 600 to 650 mg plus codeine 60 mg (MD, 5.03; 95% CI, 4.04−6.03; moderate certainty). Oxycodone 5 mg and codeine 60 mg were not more effective than placebo.

Spid

Thirty-one studies including 6,721 participants reported on SPID. Using an 18-point scale, where higher scores represent better outcomes, the interventions classified as the most effective were (effect estimates in reference to placebo) as follows: acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MD, 5.54; 95% CI, 5.26−6.02; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen 400 mg (fast acting or acid) (MD, 5.58; 95% CI, 4.85−6.31; moderate certainty). Acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (MD, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.31−3.60; moderate certainty), acetaminophen 600 to 650 mg plus codeine 60 mg (MD, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.32−3.53; moderate certainty), and naproxen 400 to 440 mg (MD, 5.27; 95% CI, 3.50−7.03; moderate certainty) were better than placebo but less effective than the interventions above. Ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (MD, 4.41; 95% CI, 5.78−3.04; low certainty) were classified as possibly better than placebo. Oxycodone 5 mg and codeine 60 mg were not more effective than placebo.

Global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects are reported in the Appendix.

Discussion

This SR and NMA summarizes the comparative effects of the analgesic drugs considered by the guideline panel when making recommendations for treating dental acute pain. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, in individuals undergoing surgical tooth extractions, the interventions classified as the most effective for pain relief were ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, and naproxen 400 to 440 mg. Oxycodone 5 mg or codeine 60 mg and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar to pain relief. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects.

Evidence for ibuprofen 200 mg plus hydrocodone 5 mg and hydrocodone 5 mg plus acetaminophen 300 to 325 mg (i.e., Vicodin) was not available. A comprehensive national survey conducted in the United States showed that hydrocodone and acetaminophen combinations (i.e., Vicodin, Vicodin ES, Vicodin HP) are the most preferred combination of analgesics prescribed by oral and maxillofacial surgeons for the management of pain following third molar extractions (Levy et al. 2015). Future research should focus on exploring the comparative effect of hydrocodone and acetaminophen formulations. Furthermore, evidence regarding the effect of the 10 selected analgesics on the temporary management of symptomatic pulpitis or its complications prior to dental treatment was not found.

A recent overview of SRs summarizing benefits and harms of analgesic agents for the management of acute dental pain concluded that “relief of postoperative pain in dental practice with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with or without acetaminophen, is equal or superior to that provided by opioid-containing medications” (Moore et al. 2018). This finding is similar to the finding of this SR and NMA that, except for acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen were superior to placebo as opposed to opioid-containing interventions that were not. Furthermore, similar to this NMA, the overview of SRs suggested that opioid analgesics and their combinations are associated with higher rates of acute adverse events (Moore et al. 2018).

Another overview of SRs aiming to summarize the efficacy of analgesics for acute dental pain in adults investigated 41 single-dose analgesics or analgesic combinations for acute postoperative pain and showed that the best interventions in terms of number needed to treat (NNT) for at least 50% maximum pain relief over 4 to 6 h compared with placebo were ibuprofen 200 mg plus acetaminophen 500 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, diclofenac potassium 50 mg, and etoricoxib 120 mg (Moore et al. 2015b). The worst intervention was codeine 60 mg (Moore et al. 2015b). These results were comparable to the results of this SR and NMA, specifically the superiority of ibuprofen plus acetaminophen and ibuprofen alone and inferiority of codeine 60 mg compared to placebo.

An overview of SRs summarizing adverse event rates associated with 41 single-dose oral analgesics or analgesic combinations compared with placebo for acute postoperative pain in adults showed that there were few instances of participants experiencing significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo for most NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and combinations not containing opioids (Moore et al. 2015a). However, for aspirin 1,000 mg, diflunisal 1,000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants often experienced significantly more adverse effects than with placebo. In this SR and NMA, most included opioid-containing interventions (oxycodone 5 mg and codeine 60 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, and acetaminophen 600–650 mg plus codeine 60 mg) were worse than placebo in terms of at least 1 adverse effect. Ibuprofen 400 and acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg were worse than placebo in terms of drowsiness.

Several differences between this SR and NMA and review of reviews by P.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2018) and R.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2015a, 2015b; Moore, Wiffen, et al. 2015) may have contributed to the differences in conclusions between these reviews. In this SR and NMA, data from individual RCTs were included in a single NMA that comprised the results, whereas in the overviews of SRs, results from multiple analyses were aggregated to constitute the results. In terms of pain relief, P.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2018) and R.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2015b; Moore, Wiffen, et al. 2015) reported NNT for at least 50% pain relief, whereas this SR and NMA reported mean pain relief measured on a scale from 0 (none) to 4 (complete) at 6 h. The variability in inclusion of interventions may have contributed to the differences in the conclusions between these publications.

Furthermore, in this SR and NMA, a modification of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB 2.0) was used to examine risk of bias in individual RCTs, whereas the overviews of SRs by P.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2018) and R.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2015a, 2015b; Moore, Wiffen, et al. 2015) did not mention risk of bias assessment. The quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach was assessed in this SR, but it was not addressed in the overviews by P.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2018) and R.A. Moore et al. (Moore et al. 2015a, 2015b; Moore, Wiffen, et al. 2015).

Strengths of the Review Process

This review is the first to synthesize NMAs for comparison of analgesics for treatment of acute dental pain associated with postsurgical extractions, allowing for streamlined clinical decision-making. Each of the review process stages was conducted in duplicate, with adjudication of conflicts by a third reviewer. The risk of bias of each individual study, as well as the certainty of the evidence for each outcome of interest, was assessed. We performed analyses and interpreted the results using the latest methodological guidance from the GRADE Working Group. In order to make the results easier to interpret, instead of using standardized mean difference, we reported continuous outcomes using mean difference by converting all scale scores to the most reported scale (Thorlund et al. 2011).

Limitations of the Review Process

This SR and NMA was limited to inclusion of only 10 interventions, which may limit its applicability. These 10 interventions, however, were chosen by a panel of clinical experts who determined that they were the most relevant to practice. Furthermore, this SR and NMA included only peer-reviewed studies published in English, but this likely did not affect the study conclusions.

Conclusion

Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, in individuals undergoing surgical tooth extractions, the interventions classified as the most effective for pain relief were ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, and naproxen 400–440 mg. Oxycodone 5 mg or codeine 60 mg and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar to pain relief. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Future research should focus on the assessment of ibuprofen 200 mg plus hydrocodone 5 mg, hydrocodone 5 mg plus acetaminophen 300 to 325 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg through RCTs.

Author Contributions

A. Miroshnychenko, contributed to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript; S. Ibrahim, M. Azab, contributed to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, critically revised the manuscript; Y. Roldan, D. Tamilselvan, L. He, J.W. Little, contributed to conception and design, data acquisition, critically revised the manuscript; J.P.D. Martinez, contributed to conception and design, data analysis, critically revised the manuscript; O. Urquhart, M. Tampi, D.E. Polk, P.A. Moore, E.V. Hersh, B. Claytor, A. Carrasco-Labra, contributed to conception and design, data interpretation, critically revised the manuscript; R. Brignardello-Petersen, contributed to conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave their final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230 – Supplemental material for Acute Postoperative Pain Due to Dental Extraction in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230.docx (17.5MB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230 for Acute Postoperative Pain Due to Dental Extraction in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis by A. Miroshnychenko, S. Ibrahim, M. Azab, Y. Roldan, J.P.D. Martinez, D. Tamilselvan, L. He, J.W. Little, O. Urquhart, M. Tampi, D.E. Polk, P.A. Moore, E.V. Hersh, B. Claytor, A. Carrasco-Labra and R. Brignardello-Petersen in Journal of Dental Research

Footnotes

A supplemental appendix to this article is available online.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: E.V. Hersh and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania have received grant funding from Pfizer Consumer Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare. In addition, within the past 5 y, E.V. Hersh received consulting funds for reviewing data and sharing his expertise with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau concerning pain studies that compared Aleve and Extra Strength Tylenol.

This project was financially supported by the FDA of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by, FDA/HHS or the US government.

The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views, position, or policy of the American Dental Association, nor does this presentation constitute an endorsement by the American Dental Association.

References

  1. American Dental Association. 2021. ADA dental drug handbook: a quick reference. 2nd ed. American Dental Association. E-book ISBN: 978-1-68447-161-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, Siemieniuk RA, Furukawa TA, Rochwerg B, Hazlewood GS, Alhazzani W, Mustafa RA, Murad MH, et al. 2018. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 93:36–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brignardello-Petersen R, Izcovich A, Rochwerg B, Florez ID, Hazlewood G, Alhazanni W, Yepes-Nuñez J, Santesso N, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, et al. 2020. GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a partially contextualised framework. BMJ. 371:m3907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brignardello-Petersen R, Mustafa RA, Siemieniuk RAC, Murad MH, Agoritsas T, Izcovich A, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH, GRADE Working Group. 2019. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence. J Clin Epidemiol. 108:77–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Denisco RC, Kenna GA, O’Neil MG, Kulich RJ, Moore PA, Kane WT, Mehta NR, Hersh EV, Katz NP. 2011. Prevention of prescription opioid abuse: the role of the dentist. J Am Dent Assoc. 142(7):800–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hersh EV, Moore PA, Grosser T, Polomano RC, Farrar JT, Saraghi M, Juska SA, Mitchell CH, Theken KN. 2020. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in postsurgical dental pain. J Dent Res. 99(7):777–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Herzig SJ, Calcaterra SL, Mosher HJ, Ronan MV, Groningen NV, Shek L, Loffredo A, Keller M, Jena AB, Nuckols TK. 2018. Safe opioid prescribing for acute noncancer pain in hospitalized adults: a systematic review of existing guidelines. J Hosp Med. 13(4):256–262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  9. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, et al. 2015. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 162(11):777–784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Levy B, Paulozzi L, Mack KA, Jones CM. 2015. Trends in opioid analgesic-prescribing rates by specialty, U.S., 2007-2012. Am J Prev Med. 49(3):409–413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Maughan BC, Hersh EV, Shofer FS, Wanner KJ, Archer E, Carrasco LR, Rhodes KV. 2016. Unused opioid analgesics and drug disposal following outpatient dental surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 168:328–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moore PA, Dionne RA, Cooper SA, Hersh EV. 2016. Why do we prescribe Vicodin? J Am Dent Assoc. 147(7):530–533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Moore PA, Hersh EV. 2013. Combining ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute pain management after third-molar extractions: translating clinical research to dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 144(8):898–908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Moore PA, Nahouraii HS, Zovko JG, Wisniewski SR. 2006. Dental therapeutic practice patterns in the U.S. II. Analgesics, corticosteroids, and antibiotics. Gen Dent. 54(3):201–207; quiz 208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Moore PA, Ziegler KM, Lipman RD, Aminoshariae A, Carrasco-Labra A, Mariotti A. 2018. Benefits and harms associated with analgesic medications used in the management of acute dental pain: an overview of systematic reviews. J Am Dent Assoc. 149(4):256–265.e253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Wiffen PJ. 2015. a. Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(10):CD011407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Wiffen PJ. 2015. b. Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(9):CD008659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Wiffen PJ. 2011. Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 9:CD008659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Moore RA, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Maguire T, Roy YM, Tyrrell L. 2015. Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(11):CD010794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Health Care Services; Committee on Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Acute Pain. 2019. Framing opioid prescribing guidelines for acute pain: developing the evidence. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, Kessels AG, Guyatt GH. 2014. A GRADE working group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 349:g5630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rucker G, Krahn U, Konig J, Efthimiou O, Davies A, Papakonstantinou T, Schwarzer G. 2021. Network meta-analysis using frequentist methods [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/netmeta/netmeta.pdf.
  23. Schwarzer G. 2015. Meta: general package for meta-analysis (R package meta version 5.1-0) [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf.
  24. Suda KJ, Zhou J, Rowan SA, McGregor JC, Perez RI, Evans CT, Gellad WF, Calip GS. 2020. Overprescribing of opioids to adults by dentists in the U.S., 2011-2015. Am J Prev Med. 58(4):473–486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. 2011. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis: a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2(3):188–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Viechtbauer W. 2021. Metafor: meta-analysis package for R (R package metafor version 3.0-2) [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf.
  27. Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, Siemieniuk RAC, Santesso N, Traversy G, Izcovich A, Sadeghirad B, Alexander PE, Devji T, et al. 2021. GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 137:163–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230 – Supplemental material for Acute Postoperative Pain Due to Dental Extraction in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230.docx (17.5MB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jdr-10.1177_00220345221139230 for Acute Postoperative Pain Due to Dental Extraction in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis by A. Miroshnychenko, S. Ibrahim, M. Azab, Y. Roldan, J.P.D. Martinez, D. Tamilselvan, L. He, J.W. Little, O. Urquhart, M. Tampi, D.E. Polk, P.A. Moore, E.V. Hersh, B. Claytor, A. Carrasco-Labra and R. Brignardello-Petersen in Journal of Dental Research

Articles from Journal of Dental Research are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES