ANALYSIS OF POSTOPERATIVE PAIN AFTER EXTRACTION OF IMPACTED MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLARS AND ADMINISTRATION OF PREEMPTIVE ANALGESIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Postoperative pain control after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is important for patients because of the effect of pain symptoms on the healing process and quality of life.The objective of this study is to make a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the postoperative pain in patients to whom preemptive analgesia was administered.Material and Methods: This is a randomised, placebo-controlled study in 80 patients who underwent surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.The patients were divided into three groups -with the preemptive administration of placebo, metamizole sodium and nimesulide.The short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used for assessment and analysis of postoperative pain.Results: For the first 24 hours after molar extraction the comparison of the values of the various pain components showed a superior effect of the preemptive analgesia with nimesulide for the alleviation of sensory and total pain compared to metamizole sodium and placebo.In all three groups, pain intensity was highest at postoperative hour 6.Conclusion: Preemptive use of NSAIDs in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars reduces the perception of postoperative pain and its intensity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".