Determination of the anti-inflammatory effects of methylprednisolone on the sequelae of third molar surgery

Esen, Emin; Taşar, Ferda; Akhan, Okan

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90486-x

Cited by 132 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Peterson et al 15 advocated the use of corticosteroids to help minimize pain, swelling and trismus. Esen et al 16 found that administration of 125mg of methylprednisolone does not have any significant effect on postoperative infections, disturbance of wound healing, adrenal suppression and other corticosteroid-related complications 16 . 18 reported that the administration of IV corticosteroids before third molar surgery offers a beneficial effect on health-related quality of life, we agreed with this, because having swelling and pain less the patient can return to his normal life.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Corticosteroids in Reducing Postoperative Morbidity Following Removal of Impacted Wisdom Teeth: A Comparative Study

Kumar¹,

Krishna²,

Silpa³

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Corticosteroids in Reducing Postoperative Morbidity Following Removal of Impacted Wisdom Teeth: A Comparative Study

Kumar¹,

Krishna²,

Silpa³

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The more comfortable route for the patients has been reviewed as the oral route, but its efficacy compared with the parenteral route is not predictable [8]. Following the removal of impacted third molars, either 40 mg methylprednisolone injected into gluteal region or an intravenous dose of 125 mg is reported to reduce swelling, pain and trismus associated with the surgery [7,14,15] The surgical reviews have proved that intramuscular route is a better route for administration when compared to the oral route on the basis of plasma drug concentration and anti inflammatory action [8]. However, in most of the practices, the steroid injections are administered in the gluteal region before or after the surgical removal of impacted teeth or any other surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Efficacy of Methylprednisolone Injection into Masseter Muscle Versus Gluteal Muscle for Surgical Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molar

Selvaraj

Rao

Lankupalli

2013

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the efficacy, advantages and disadvantages of the use of preoperative injection of methylprednisolone into masseter muscle versus gluteal muscle to minimize postoperative swelling after the surgical removal of lower third molar. Materials and Methods A prospective randomized study was planned comprising of 10 subjects, undergoing elective surgery for bilateral impacted lower third molar removal with similar severity index. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups-group I who received intrabuccal masseteric injection and group II who received gluteal injection of 40 mg of methylprednisolone after inferior alveolar nerve and long buccal nerve block (prior to the surgical removal of the impacted lower third molars). We evaluated the postoperative pain, trismus, swelling, advantages and disadvantages of the injection techniques. Statistical analysis was done using student t test. Results Ten patients of mean age 27 ± 6 years were selected for the study including six males and four females. The mean age was 27 years (SD 6). The differences in measurements of preoperative and postoperative pain, swelling and mouth opening between group I and group II were not statistically significant. Conclusion The study evidently proves that there is no statistically significant difference between the intrabuccal approach of masseteric injection and gluteal injection of methylprednisolone in terms of pain, swelling and trismus following surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. However, the intrabuccal approach of masseteric injection was found to be more convenient when compared to gluteal injection, for the surgeon as well as the patient. It also has an additional advantage of being a painless steroidal injection on an anesthetized injection site.

show abstract

“…The most potential side effects of corticosteroids are adrenal suppression, osteonecrosis, impaired wound healing, and increased risk of postoperative infection. 14,15 Furthermore, use of corticosteroids is contraindicated in patients with hypertension, liver disease, diabetes, and hypothyroidism. These problems hinder the routine administration of corticosteroids for prevention of postoperative sequelae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periosteal Releasing Incision With Diode Laser in Guided Bone Regeneration Procedure: A Case Series

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Periosteal releasing incision (PRI) is nearly always essential to advance the flap sufficiently for a tension-free flap closure in bone augmentation procedures. However, hematoma, swelling, and pain are recognized as the main consequences of PRI with scalpel. The aim of this case series was to investigate the effectiveness of laser-assisted PRI in guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure. In addition, postoperative hematoma, swelling, and pain and implant success were assessed. Methods: Seventeen patients needed GBR were included in this study. Diode laser (940 nm, 2 W, pulse interval: 1 ms, pulse length: 1 ms, contact mode, 400-μm fiber tip) was used in a contact mode to cut the periosteum to create a tension-free flap. Facial hematoma, swelling, pain, and the number of consumed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were measured for the six postoperative days. Six months after implant loading, implant success was evaluated. Results: Minimal bleeding was encountered during the procedure. A tension-free primary closure of the flap was achieved in all cases. The clinical healing of the surgical area was uneventful. None of the patients experienced hematoma, ecchymosis, or intense swelling after surgery. The mean value of maximum pain (visual analogue scale -VAS) was 20.59 ± 12.10 mm (mild pain). Patients did not need to use NSAID after four postoperative days. All implants were successful and functional and none of them failed after 6 months of implant loading. Conclusion: This study revealed the effectiveness of laser-assisted PRI in GBR procedure. This technique was accompanied with minimal sequelae at the first postoperative week. All implants were successful and no complication was noted during the course of this study.

show abstract

Determination of the anti-inflammatory effects of methylprednisolone on the sequelae of third molar surgery

Cited by 132 publications

References 30 publications

Role of Corticosteroids in Reducing Postoperative Morbidity Following Removal of Impacted Wisdom Teeth: A Comparative Study

Role of Corticosteroids in Reducing Postoperative Morbidity Following Removal of Impacted Wisdom Teeth: A Comparative Study

Comparison of Efficacy of Methylprednisolone Injection into Masseter Muscle Versus Gluteal Muscle for Surgical Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molar

Periosteal Releasing Incision With Diode Laser in Guided Bone Regeneration Procedure: A Case Series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About