Photobiomodulation for Managing "Dry Socket": A Randomised Controlled Trial

Shatha S ALHarthi 1, Dena Ali 2, Nujud Zayed Alamry 1, Majed K Alshehri 3, Darshan D Divakar 4, Munerah S BinShabaib 5

Affiliations

04 January 2023

-

doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.06.002

Abstract

Objective: There are no studies that have evaluated the effect of Alveogyl with and without adjunct photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in reducing self-rated post-operative pain (SPP) in patients with alveolar osteitis (AO; dry socket). The aim of the present randomised controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of Alveogyl with and without PBMT for the management of SPP in patients with AO.

Methods: Adult nonsmokers with diagnosed AO were included. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups. In Group 1, patients underwent mechanical curettage (MC) with copious normal saline irrigation. In Group 2, patients underwent MC + Alveogyl dressings in extraction sites which were changed every 48 hours until cessation of pain. In Group 3, patients underwent MC + Alveogyl followed by PBMT using a 660-nm indium-gallium-aluminum-phosphide diode laser. In Group 4, patients were treated solely with PBMT. The visual analogue scale was used up to 3 postoperative days to assess SPP up to 3 days at 6- (T0) and 12-hour (T1) intervals. Statistical analyses were performed using the analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc adjustment tests. Correlation between SPP scores and age, sex, and eruption status of teeth was assessed using logistic regression models. P values <.01 were nominated as being statistically significant.

Results: In all, 14, 13, 14, and 14 individuals with AO were included in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. All patients had undergone extraction of mandibular third molars. At baseline and on day 1, there was no difference in SPP in all groups. On days 2 and 3, mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at T1 (P < .01) and T2 (P < .01) intervals were significantly high in Group 2 compared with Group 3. On days 2 and 3, mean VAS scores at T1 (P < .01) and T2 (P < .01) intervals were significantly high in Group 4 compared with Group 3. There was no difference in SPP in groups 3 and 4 on day 3 at T0 and T1 intervals.

Conclusions: PBMT following MC and Alveogyl dressing is more efficient in reducing SPP compared with MC with or without Alveogyl dressing in patients with AO.

Keywords: Alveogyl; Alveolar osteitis; Pain; Photobiomodulation; Visual analogue scale.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest None disclosed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 2 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 2 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 2 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 2 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 2 (P < .01).

Fig. 1 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 2 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 2 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 2 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 2 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 2 (P < .01).

Fig. 2 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 3 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01).

Fig. 2 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 3 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01).

Fig. 3 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 4 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 4 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 4 (P < .01).

Fig. 3 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 1 (blue bars) and 4 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 4 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 4 (P < .01).

Fig. 4 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 2 (blue bars) and 3 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01).

Fig. 4 Mean self-rated postoperative pain scores at T1 and T2 intervals in groups 2 (blue bars) and 3 (red bars). *Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). †Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01). ‡Compared with T1 in Group 3 (P < .01). §Compared with T2 in Group 3 (P < .01).

Similar articles

Influence of immediate post-extraction socket irrigation on development of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar removal: a prospective split-mouth study, preliminary report.

Tolstunov L.Br Dent J. 2012 Dec;213(12):597-601. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1134.PMID: 23257808

Effect of Photobiomodulation on the Incidence of Alveolar Osteitis and Postoperative Pain following Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Nejat AH, Eshghpour M, Danaeifar N, Abrishami M, Vahdatinia F, Fekrazad R.Photochem Photobiol. 2021 Sep;97(5):1129-1135. doi: 10.1111/php.13457. Epub 2021 Jun 17.PMID: 34048061 Clinical Trial.

The efficacy of minocycline hydrochloride ointment versus iodoform gauze for alveolar osteitis: A prospective cohort study.

Sun YQ, Sun R, Zhao JH.BMC Oral Health. 2022 Oct 18;22(1):448. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02468-9.PMID: 36258229 Free PMC article.

The effects of photobiomodulation therapy for treatment of alveolar osteitis (Dry Socket): Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shafaee H, Bardideh E, Nazari MS, Asadi R, Shahidi B, Rangrazi A.Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2020 Dec;32:102000. doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102000. Epub 2020 Sep 9.PMID: 32919077 Review.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket).

Daly BJ, Sharif MO, Jones K, Worthington HV, Beattie A.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 26;9(9):CD006968. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3.PMID: 36156769 Review.

KMEL References

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

References

  1.  
    1. Tolstunov L. Influence of immediate post-extraction socket irrigation on development of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar removal: a prospective split-mouth study, preliminary report. Br Dent J. 2012;213:597–601. - PubMed
  2.  
    1. Adeyemo WL, Ladeinde AL, Ogunlewe MO. Clinical evaluation of post-extraction site wound healing. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7:40–49. - PubMed
  3.  
    1. Blum IR. Contemporary views on dry socket (alveolar osteitis): a clinical appraisal of standardization, aetiopathogenesis and management: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31:309–317. - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Blondeau F, Daniel NG. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk factors. J Can Dent Assoc. 2007;73:325. - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Taberner-Vallverdú M, Nazir M, Sánchez-Garcés M, Gay-Escoda C. Efficacy of different methods used for dry socket management: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e633–e639. - PMC - PubMed
  6.  
    1. Rakhshan V. Common risk factors of dry socket (alveolitis osteitis) following dental extraction: A brief narrative review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;119:407–411. - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Catellani JE, Harvey S, Erickson SH, Cherkin D. Effect of oral contraceptive cycle on dry socket (localized alveolar osteitis) J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;101:777–780. - PubMed
  8.  
    1. Oginni FO. Dry socket: a prospective study of prevalent risk factors in a Nigerian population. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:2290–2295. - PubMed
  9.  
    1. Chaurasia NK, Upadhyaya C, Dixit S. Comparative study to determine the efficacy of zinc oxide eugenol and alveogyl in treatment of dry socket. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2017;15:203–206. - PubMed
  10.  
    1. Jesudasan JS, Wahab PU, Sekhar MR. Effectiveness of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel and a eugenol-based paste on postoperative alveolar osteitis in patients having third molars extracted: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53:826–830. - PubMed
  11.  
    1. Haraji A, Rakhshan V, Khamverdi N, Alishahi HK. Effects of intra-alveolar placement of 0.2% chlorhexidine bioadhesive gel on dry socket incidence and postsurgical pain: a double-blind split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orofac Pain. 2013;27:256–262. - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Reeshma S, Dain CP. Comparison of platelet-rich fibrin with zinc oxide eugenol in the relief of pain in alveolar osteitis. Health Sci Rep. 2021;4:e354. - PMC - PubMed
  13.  
    1. Dubovina D, Mihailović B, Bukumirić Z, et al. The use of hyaluronic and aminocaproic acid in the treatment of alveolar osteitis. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2016;73:1010–1015. - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Shafaee H, Bardideh E, Nazari MS, Asadi R, Shahidi B, Rangrazi A. The effects of photobiomodulation therapy for treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket): systematic review and meta-analysis. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2020;32 - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Supe NB, Choudhary SH, Yamyar SM, Patil KS, Choudhary AK, Kadam VD. Efficacy of alvogyl (combination of iodoform + butylparaminobenzoate) and zinc oxide eugenol for dry socket. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018;8:193–199. - PMC - PubMed
  16.  
    1. Dadjoo S, Michelogiannakis D, Rossouw PE, Javed F. Potential adjunct therapies for the management of temporomandibular disorders: an evidence-based review. Cranio. 2022:1–11. - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Qadri T, Javed F, Johannsen G, Gustafsson A. Role of diode lasers (800-980 nm) as adjuncts to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015;33:568–575. - PubMed
  18.  
    1. Onur SG. Evaluation of pain perception and wound healing after laser-assisted frenectomy in pediatric patients: a retrospective comparative study. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2021;39:204–210. - PubMed
  19.  
    1. Javed F, Kellesarian SV, Romanos GE. Role of diode lasers in oro-facial pain management. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2017;31:153–155. - PubMed
  20.  
    1. Nejat AH, Eshghpour M, Danaeifar N, Abrishami M, Vahdatinia F, Fekrazad R. Effect of photobiomodulation on the incidence of alveolar osteitis and postoperative pain following mandibular third molar surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Photochem Photobiol. 2021;97:1129–1135. - PubMed
  21.  
    1. Mulder-van Staden S, Holmes H, Hille J. In vivo investigation of diode laser application on red complex bacteria in non-surgical periodontal therapy: a split-mouth randomised control trial. Sci Rep. 2020;10:21311. - PMC - PubMed
  22.  
    1. Eshghpour M, Ahrari F, Najjarkar NT, Khajavi MA. Comparison of the effect of low level laser therapy with alvogyl on the management of alveolar osteitis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e386–e392. - PMC - PubMed
  23.  
    1. Jovanović G, Urić N, Krunić N, Tijanić M, Stojanović S. [Assessment of the effectiveness of low level laser in the treatment of alveolar osteitis] Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011;68:506–510. - PubMed
  24.  
    1. Kaya G, Yapici G, Savaş Z, Güngörmüş M. Comparison of alvogyl, SaliCept patch, and low-level laser therapy in the management of alveolar osteitis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:1571–1577. - PubMed
  25.  
    1. Kamal A, Salman B, Ar NH, Samsudin AR. Management of dry socket with low-level laser therapy. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25:1029–1033. - PubMed
  26.  
    1. Reed MD, Van Nostran W. Assessing pain intensity with the visual analog scale: a plea for uniformity. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54:241–244. - PubMed
  27.  
    1. Renton T. Dental (odontogenic) pain. Rev Pain. 2011;5:2–7. - PMC - PubMed
  28.  
    1. Ghosh A, Aggarwal VR, Aetiology Moore R. prevention and management of alveolar osteitis-a scoping review. J Oral Rehabil. 2022;49:103–113. - PubMed
  29.  
    1. Khalighi HR, Anbari F, Beygom Taheri J, Bakhtiari S, Namazi Z, Pouralibaba F. Effect of low-power laser on treatment of orofacial pain. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2010;4:75–78. - PMC - PubMed
  30.  
    1. Chen L, Zhu L, Wang K, et al. Antinociceptive effect of prostatic acid phosphatase in a rat model of cancer-induced bone pain. Pain Physician. 2013;16:533–546. - PubMed
  31.  
    1. de Sousa MVP, Kawakubo M, Ferraresi C, Kaippert B, Yoshimura EM, Hamblin MR. Pain management using photobiomodulation: mechanisms, location, and repeatability quantified by pain threshold and neural biomarkers in mice. J Biophotonics. 2018;11 - PMC - PubMed
  32.  
    1. Park CK, Li HY, Yeon KY, et al. Eugenol inhibits sodium currents in dental afferent neurons. J Dent Res. 2006;85:900–904. - PubMed
  33.  
    1. Kamal A, Salman B, Abdul Razak NH, Qabbani AA, Samsudin AR. The efficacy of concentrated growth factor in the healing of alveolar osteitis: a clinical study. Int J Dent. 2020;2020 - PMC - PubMed
  34.  
    1. Suchánek J, Ivančaková RK, Mottl R, et al. Hyaluronic acid-based medical device for treatment of alveolar osteitis-clinical study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16 - PMC - PubMed
  35.  
    1. Muñoz-Cámara D, Pardo-Zamora G, Camacho-Alonso F. Postoperative effects of intra-alveolar application of 0.2% chlorhexidine or 1% hyaluronic acid bioadhesive gels after mandibular third molar extraction: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25:617–625. - PubMed
  36.  
    1. Zhu J, Zhang S, Yuan X, et al. Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on the control of alveolar osteitis, pain, trismus, soft tissue healing, and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50:398–406. - PubMed
  37.  
    1. Riba-Terés N, Jorba-García A, Toledano-Serrabona J, Aguilar-Durán L, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Microbiota of alveolar osteitis after permanent tooth extractions: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122:173–181. - PubMed

Page Navigation