Analgesic Efficacy of Etoricoxib following Third Molar Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy of etoricoxib in comparison with traditional NSAIDs for postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Methods. The quality of studies found in PubMed and Google Scholar was evaluated with Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Data on total consumption of rescue analgesics, number of patients using rescue analgesics, global assessment of study treatments, and adverse effects were extracted exclusively from high-quality clinical trials. Each meta-analysis was performed with the Review Manager Software 5.3 for Windows. Results. The qualitative analysis showed that etoricoxib has better analgesic activity when compared with ibuprofen (2 clinical trials) and diclofenac (1 clinical trial). A similar analgesic efficacy between etoricoxib and nonselective Cox-2 NSAIDs was informed in 3/8 studies (2 compared to ibuprofen and 1 to naproxen sodium). Moreover, the number of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the postoperative period showed a statistical difference in favor of etoricoxib when compared to NSAIDs. Conclusion. Etoricoxib significantly reduces the number of patients needing rescue analgesics compared to NSAIDs after third molar surgery.

Preemptive effects of etoricoxib, acetaminophen, nimesulide, and ibuprofen on postoperative pain management after single‐implant surgery: A randomized clinical trial

“…On the other hand, the NIME presents its maximum concentration from 1.22 to 2.75 h (Singla et al, 2000), reaching 3 h (Hanif et al, 2017). Similar findings were described by other studies (Costa et al, 2015; la Torre et al, 2021). In a meta‐analysis of clinical trials on preemptive analgesia of third molar surgeries, no significant difference in the amount of rescue medication was observed (Moore et al, 1997).…”

Analgesic Efficacy of COX-2 Inhibitors in Periodontal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Similar results were reported by Isiordia-Espinoza et al, 2022 on the safety profile of celecoxib in comparison to active controls following third molar surgery [ 35 ]. Another meta-analysis found no difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, and alveolar osteitis) between etoricoxib and traditional NSAIDs in a third molar surgery [ 58 ]. A similar risk of adverse effects has been reported between celecoxib and traditional NSAIDs with respect to gastrointestinal and vascular effects and acute myocardial infarction.…”

“…However, the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects was higher with diclofenac than with etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Finally, there is no evidence of serious adverse effects with the use of etoricoxib [ 58 ]. Our research team recommends increasing the number of clinical trials that test COX-2 selective agents in periodontal surgery to confirm their analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy, also considering the reporting of adverse effects essential, which will allow us to determine if there is a larger susceptible population.…”

Merging konjac glucomannan with other copolymeric hydrogels as a cutting-edge liquid raft system for dual delivery of etoricoxib and famotidine

“…Etoricoxib (ETO) is considered a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, a sub-class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, that obstructs prostaglandin production by inhibiting cyclo-oxygenase enzymes, thus reducing pain, discomfort, and inflammation resulting in an analgesia effect (Ahmadi et al., 2022 ; Farag & Bahra, 2022 ; Ju et al., 2022 ). Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of ETO in treating acute and chronic pain associated with different diseases like acute gout, dysmenorrhea, oral surgery, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and chronic lower back pain (la Torre et al., 2021 ). The assessment of its side effects showed some cardiovascular risks, different renal events, dizziness, headache, and GIT disturbances like nausea, vomiting, and peptic ulcer (Kirschneck et al., 2019 ; la Torre et al., 2021 ).…”