Efficacy of Ibuprofen Gargle for Postoperative Pain After Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: Protocol for a Phase II, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Extraction of mandibular third molars is one of the most commonly performed oral surgical procedures, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for pain management. Oral NSAIDs are associated with adverse events such as gastrointestinal disorders, renal and hepatic dysfunction, and platelet dysfunction. Topical analgesics have been proposed as alternatives to oral and injectable medications to safely improve postoperative pain relief. We will conduct a single-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized crossover trial to assess the pain-relieving effect of an ibuprofen-containing gargle in patients undergoing extraction of mandibular third molars when compared with a placebo gargle. Objective This will be the first clinical study to compare the efficacy of an ibuprofen gargle with that of a placebo for relieving postoperative pain in addition to loxoprofen after mandibular third molar extraction. Methods This study will be performed at Kobe University Hospital. Participants (N=40) will be randomized equally to 1 of 2 groups. The ibuprofen-placebo group will receive an ibuprofen gargle on postoperative day (POD) 1 and a placebo gargle on POD 2. The placebo-ibuprofen group will receive a placebo gargle on POD 1 and an ibuprofen gargle on POD 2. Both groups will receive ibuprofen gargles on PODs 3-5 at least once daily. The primary objective is to estimate the within-subject difference on a visual analog scale (VAS) before and 5 minutes after using the ibuprofen or placebo gargle on PODs 1 and 2. The secondary objectives are to estimate the within-subject differences in ΔVAS before and 15 minutes after using the ibuprofen or placebo gargle on PODs 1 and 2, ΔVAS before and 5 or 15 minutes after using the ibuprofen gargle on PODs 3-5, overall efficacy (self-completion, 5 scales) on PODs 1-5, daily frequency of use (ibuprofen or placebo gargle and analgesics) on PODs 1-7, and the occurrence of adverse events. Results The Certified Review Board of Kobe University approved the study. The intervention was implemented in May 2021. For the primary analysis, we will calculate the mean and SD of ΔVAS5 on PODs 1 and 2 and the within-study difference in ΔVAS5. The treatment effect will be estimated by dividing the mean ΔVAS5 in the within-subject difference by 2 and calculating the P value using an unpaired t test. For the secondary analysis, we will calculate the mean and SD of ΔVAS15 on PODs 1 and 2 and the within-study difference in ΔVAS15. The treatment effect will be estimated as in the primary analysis. Conclusions This trial will provide exploratory evidence of the efficacy and safety of an ibuprofen gargle for pain reduction after mandibular third molar extraction. Trial Registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs051210022; https://tinyurl.com/39ej23zu International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/35533
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
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".