MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Google search was undertaken of all controlled clinical trials on the effects of corticosteroids on pain, swelling and trismus after lower third molar surgery. The review was limited to studies published over the last 10 years (2006-2015).
RESULTS: Of the 46 initially retrieved articles, 34 were finally included. Eleven studies compared the effect of 2 similar (but different dose) or different group of corticosteroids. Thirty-one studies reported the effects of corticosteroids on all sequale, 2 reported the outcome on swelling and trismus and another 1 on swelling and pain only. In 16 of the studies, corticosteroid use resulted in significant reductions in pain after third molar removal. Twenty-two out of 29 studies reported reduced swelling against negative control while 18 out of 25 studies reported improved mouth opening. Fourteen studies reported the benefit of corticosteroids on all 3 sequelae, with 71.4% resulted from the use of methylprednisolone.
CONCLUSION: Although there are some conflicting effects, the results of this analysis shows in general the benefits derived from short-term use of corticosteroids in relation to pain, swelling and trismus following third molar surgical extraction, with no side effects observed.
FUNDING: This work was supported by the University of Malaya's High Impact Research grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/05.
STUDY DESIGN: In total, 282 patients with oral submucous fibrosis were treated with topical corticosteroid and oral antioxidant and the ice-cream stick exercise regimen. Patients in subgroups A1, A2, and A3 were additionally given a new MED. Patients in subgroups A1 and B1 patients with interincisal distance (IID) of 20 to 35 mm were managed without any additional therapy; patients in subgroups A2 and B2 with IID of 20 to 35 mm were additionally managed with intralesional injections; and those in subgroups A3 and B3 with IID less than 20 mm were managed surgically. Subjective evaluation of decrease in the oral mucosal burning was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple post hoc analysis were carried out to present the results.
RESULTS: Patients using the MED, that is, subgroups A1, A2, and A3, showed reduction in burning sensation in the range of 64.8% to 71.1% and 27.8% to 30.9%, whereas in subgroups B1, B2, and B3, reduction in burning sensation ranged from 64.7% to 69.9% and from 29.3% to 38.6% after 6 months. The wo-way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant results in changes in initial VAS scores to 6-monthly VAS scores between MED users and non-MED users.
CONCLUSIONS: The MED helps to enhance the rate of reduction of mucosal burning sensation, in addition to the conventional ice-cream stick regimen, as an adjunct to local and surgical treatment.
METHODOLOGY: Pubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4-8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.
CONCLUSION: While clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacies and safety of adsorbent lotion containing tapioca starch, spent grain wax, Butyrospermum parkii extract, argania spinosa kernel oil, aloe barbadensis, rosehip oil, and allantoin for the treatment of mild-to-moderate intertrigo, relative to 1% hydrocortisone cream.
METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 40 intertrigo patients. Twice daily, 20 patients applied adsorbent lotion while the remainder used 1% hydrocortisone cream. Efficacy evaluation, skin biophysical measurements, skin tolerability, safety, and visual analog scale (VAS) patient-satisfaction scores were evaluated at baseline and Week 2.
RESULTS: The adsorbent lotion showed higher complete cure rates for color, partial epidermal loss, papules/pustules/vesicles/patches, dryness, and scaling than the corticosteroid without statistical significance. Adsorbent lotion demonstrated significantly higher reduction in pruritus than the corticosteroid treatment. Reduction of erythema level using Mexameter and VAS patient-satisfaction scores were not statistically different between adsorbent lotion and hydrocortisone cream. No adverse effects or superimposed infections were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The anti-inflammatory efficacies of adsorbent lotion and low-potency steroid were equivalent. The lotion was safe and produced excellent pruritus reduction. Patient satisfaction was high.