Dataset Information

The Analgesic Efficacy of 5% Naproxen Gel for Pain Associated with Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: Several methods have been proposed to relieve orthodontic pain, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy of 5% naproxen gel to relieve pain associated with orthodontic separator placement.This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 41 patients between 14 and 20 years old complaining of pain due to placement of orthodontic elastic separators. Five-percent naproxen and placebo gels were applied randomly in a spilt mouth design to the permanent first molars area. The gels were applied every 8 hours for 3 days after placement of separators. Patients recorded their level of pain at determined time points using a 0 to 100 visual analog scale. Normal distribution was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Paired samples t test was used to compare the mean pain score between the two gels. Multi-factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the severity of pain based on gender and age.Out of 41 patients, 34 completed this trial (23 females and 11 males). The mean pain score significantly decreased over time in both sides and for both genders (P < 0.001). Pain score was not significantly different between males and females or between patients < 16 and ≥ 16 years of age. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the naproxen group at all-time points (P < 0.001). Naproxen gel showed significantly higher analgesic efficacy when compared to the placebo at all-time points. The highest and lowest pain score was noted at 2 hours and at 7 days after separator placement, respectively.Using 5% naproxen gel is an effective method for reducing orthodontic pain following elastic separator placement.

SUBMITTER: Eslamian L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5559666 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder in primary care that frequently causes discomfort. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be used to reduce neck pain and associated inflammation and facilitate earlier recovery. Topical diclofenac diethylamine (DDEA) 1.16% gel is clinically proven to be effective and well tolerated in acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions, but until now no clinical data existed for its use in acute NP. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DDEA 1.16% gel compared with placebo gel in acute NP.MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with acute NP (n = 72) were treated with DDEA 1.16% gel (2 g, 4x/day, for 5 days) or placebo. Efficacy assessments included pain-on-movement (POM), pain-at-rest (PAR), functional neck disability index (NDI) and response to treatment (decrease in POM by 50% after 48 h). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study.ResultsThe primary outcome, POM at 48 h, was statistically significantly lower with DDEA gel (19.5 mm) vs. placebo (56.9 mm) (p < 0.0001), representing a clinically relevant decrease from baseline (75% vs. 23%, respectively). All POM scores were significantly lower with DDEA gel vs. placebo from 1 h, as were PAR and NDI scores from first assessment (24 h) onwards (all p < 0.0001). Response to treatment was significantly higher with DDEA gel (94.4%) vs. placebo (8.3%) (p < 0.0001). There were no AEs with DDEA gel.ConclusionsDDEA 1.16% gel, which is available over-the-counter, was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of acute neck pain. The tools used to assess efficacy suggest that it quickly reduced neck pain and improved neck function. However, questions remain regarding the comparability and validity of such tools. Further studies will help ascertain whether DDEA 1.16% gel offers an alternative treatment option in this common, often debilitating condition.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01335724.

Project description:Chronic non-specific low back pain is a major socioeconomic public health issue worldwide and, despite the volume of research in the area, it is still a difficult-to-treat condition. The conservative analgesic therapy usually comprises a variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. The neuromatrix pain model and the new findings on the process of chronicity of pain point to a higher effectiveness of treatments that address central rather than peripheral structures. The transcranial direct current stimulation is a noninvasive technique of neuromodulation that has made recent advances in the treatment of chronic pain. The simultaneous combination of these two electrostimulation techniques (cerebral and peripheral) can provide an analgesic effect superior to isolated interventions. However, all the evidence on the analgesic efficacy of these techniques, alone or combined, is still fragmented. This is a protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate whether cerebral electrical stimulation combined with peripheral electrical stimulation is more effective in relieving pain than the isolated application of electrical stimulations in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.Ninety-two patients will be randomized into four groups to receive transcranial direct current stimulation (real/sham)?+ transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (real/sham) for 12 sessions over a period of four weeks. The primary clinical outcome (pain intensity) and the secondary ones (sensory and affective aspects of pain, physical functioning and global perceived effect) will be recorded before treatment, after four weeks, in Month 3 and in Month 6 after randomization. Confounding factors such as anxiety and depression, the patient's satisfaction with treatment and adverse effects will also be listed. Data will be collected by an examiner unaware of (blind to) the treatment allocation.The results of this study may assist in clinical decision-making about the combined use of cerebral and peripheral electrical stimulation for pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain.NCT01896453.

Project description:Study objectiveIn US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge.ResultsTwo hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients.ConclusionAmong ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) effectiveness in spontaneous and chewing pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement.Methods26 patients (mean age 20.07 ± 3.13 years) with maxillary Little's Irregularity Index (LII) of 7 mm or more that indicates first maxillary premolars extraction and no medications intake were eligible for this trial. Patients were randomly assigned with 1:1 ratio using simple randomization technique to receive either LLL or placebo treatment. Blinding was applicable for patients only. In the laser group, patients received a single LLL dose (wavelength 830 nm, energy 2 J/point) in four points (2 buccal, 2 palatal) for each maxillary anterior tooth root. Patients in the placebo group had the same laser application procedure without emitting the laser beam. Patients were asked to score spontaneous and chewing pain intensity by filling out a questionnaire with a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) after 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h of treatment application. Independent t-test was used to compare the mean pain scores between the laser and placebo groups for both spontaneous and chewing pain at each studied time point.ResultsNo dropout occurred so the results of the 26 patients were statistically analyzed. Despite some clinical differences observed between the two groups, no statistical significance was found for each studied time point (p > 0.05) for both spontaneous and chewing pain except after 72 h for chewing pain with a VAS score of (18.84 ± 13.44) mm for the laser group compared to (38.15 ± 27.06) mm for the placebo group.ConclusionsLLLT, with the suggested parameters, is not effective in pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement.Trial registrationName of the registry: Clinicaltrials.gov Trial registration number: NCT02568436. Date of registration: 26 September 2015 'Retrospectively registered'.

Project description:IntroductionRecently the DAVID study demonstrated the better analgesic efficacy of tramadol hydrochloride/dexketoprofen 75/25 mg (TRAM/DKP) over tramadol hydrochloride/paracetamol 75/650 mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in a model of moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of an impacted third molar. The aim of this subpopulation analysis was to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between baseline pain intensity (PI) level and the effectiveness in pain control of the TRAM/DKP combination in comparison with the TRAM/paracetamol combination. This will further improve and facilitate the accurate design of future acute pain studies for the use of the TRAM/DKP combination.MethodsPatients experiencing at least moderate pain, defined as a PI score ≥ 4 in an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) were stratified according to NRS-PI at baseline (NRS ≥ 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8) or aggregated in two groups: (i) moderate pain, NRS-PI ≥ 4 to ≤ 6; (ii) severe pain, NRS-PI > 6. Analgesic efficacy was assessed at pre-specified time points by using pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point verbal rating scale (VRS) and PI on an 11-point NRS. The primary endpoint was total PAR over 6 h post-dose (TOTPAR6); secondary endpoints included, among others, the time course of mean PAR and PI scores over 8 h, TOTPAR over 2, 4, and 8 h post-dose, and the sum of PI difference (SPID) over 2, 4, 6, and 8 h. Safety evaluation was based on the incidence, seriousness, intensity, and causal relationship of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsThe analgesic efficacy evaluated by TOTPAR6 (primary endpoint) remained steady across increasing baseline PI-NRS cutoff groups with TRAM/DKP, but not with TRAM/paracetamol. The study also demonstrated the superiority of TRAM/DKP combination over TRAM/paracetamol in terms of TOTPAR over 2, 4, and 8 h post-dose and SPID at 2, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose in both baseline PI groups (moderate or severe); similarly, the time course of PAR and PI indicated better efficacy with TRAM/DKP as soon as 30 min and up to 4-6 h. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was not increased in the severe baseline PI group.ConclusionOverall, the results of this subgroup analysis of the DAVID study confirmed the superiority of the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP vs TRAM/paracetamol, irrespective of the baseline PI.

Project description:Rebamipide is a gastroprotective agent with promising results against gastric damage induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The present study evaluated if rebamipide protects against naproxen-induced gastric damage in healthy volunteers. Changes in gastric PGE2 tissue concentration were also evaluated.After a preliminary endoscopy to rule out previous gastric macroscopic damage, twenty-four healthy volunteers of both sexes were divided into 2 groups. One group received sodium naproxen 550 mg b.i.d. plus placebo for 7 days, while the other group received sodium naproxen 550 mg b.i.d. plus rebamipide 100 mg b.i.d. At the end of treatment, a new endoscopy was performed. Gastric macroscopic damage was evaluated by the Cryer score and by the modified Lanza score. The primary outcome measure of the trial was the macroscopic damage observed in each treatment group at the end of treatment. Biopsies were collected at both endoscopies for PGE2 quantification and histopathological analysis (secondary outcomes). Tissue PGE2 was quantified by ELISA. The randomization sequence was generated using 3 blocks of 8 subjects each. Volunteers and endoscopists were blind to whether they were receiving rebamipide or placebo.All recruited volunteers completed the trial. Sodium naproxen induced gastric damage in both groups. At the end of the study, median Cryer score was 4 in both groups (Difference?=?0; 95%CI?=?-1 to 0; p?=?0.728). In the placebo group, the mean tissue PGE2 concentration was 1005?±?129 pg/mL before treatment and 241?±?41 pg/mL after treatment (p?<?0.001). In the rebamipide group, the mean tissue PGE2 concentration was 999?±?109 pg/mL before treatment, and 168?±?13 pg/mL after treatment (p?<?0.001). There was no difference in mean tissue PGE2 between the two groups (difference?=?5; 95%CI from -334.870 to 345.650; p?=?0.975). No significant change was observed at the histopathological evaluation, despite the evident macroscopic damage induced by naproxen.Rebamipide does not protect against naproxen-induced gastric damage in healthy volunteers.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02632812 . Registered 14 December 2015.

Dataset Information

The Analgesic Efficacy of 5% Naproxen Gel for Pain Associated with Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets