The efficacy of a topical anesthetic gel in the relief of pain associated with
localized alveolar osteitis.
Author(s): Burgoyne CC, Giglio JA, Reese SE, Sima AP, Laskin DM.
Affiliation(s): Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0566, USA.
Publication date & source: 2010, J Oral Maxillofac Surg. , 68(1):144-8
PURPOSE: This prospective randomized clinical study assessed the efficacy of pain
control for postextraction alveolar osteitis comparing the use of eugenol on a
gauze strip versus a thermosetting gel containing 2.5% prilocaine and 2.5%
lidocaine.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients who presented with postextraction
alveolar osteitis were randomly assigned to either a control group or test group.
After irrigation of the extraction site with normal saline solution, the control
patients were treated with eugenol on a gauze strip placed in the socket and the
test patients were treated with the thermosetting gel placed directly into the
socket. All patients were given a series of visual analog scales to record their
pretreatment pain and post-treatment pain at 5, 10, and 15 minutes and then at
1-hour increments during waking hours for the next 48 hours. They were also given
a prescription for an analgesic to use for breakthrough pain during the 48-hour
period, if necessary, and instructed to record the dose and timing of any pain
medication taken. All patients were seen for follow-up at 48 hours after
treatment.
RESULTS: The mean pretreatment pain score was 6.72 on a scale ranging from 1 to
10 for the eugenol group and 6.37 for the prilocaine-lidocaine group (SE, 0.46),
and the 2 groups were not different (P = .62). In the immediate post-treatment
period (0-15 minutes) the pain levels were significantly reduced in both groups
(Ps < .001). However, the thermosetting gel produced a significantly greater
reduction in pain (mean, 3.23; SE, 0.62) than the eugenol (mean, 4.83; SE, 0.43)
(P = .022). Over the next 48 hours, the pain level was nominally less with the
thermosetting gel, but this difference was not statistically significant (Ps =
.2).
CONCLUSION: Although the efficacy of the 2 treatments was not significantly
different, the nominal superiority and ease of using the thermosetting gel
warrant further investigation.
|