Third Molar ExtractionPhase 3NCT00971178
Analgesic Effect of Peripheral Dexmedetomidine
A Phase 3 study testing local dexmedetomidine, Peripheral normal saline and IV dexmedetomidine in people with Third Molar Extraction, run by The University of Hong Kong.
Trial summary
Dexmedetomidine is an alpha 2-adrenoreceptor agonist, which provides sedation, analgesia and anxiolysis in clinical practice (Cortinez et al., 2004,Hall et al., 2000). Three types of alpha 2-adrenergic receptor subtypes are found in the human body and they have been designated alpha 2A, alpha 2B and alpha 2C. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Third Molar Extraction
- What is being tested?
- local dexmedetomidine, Peripheral normal saline and IV dexmedetomidine
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 105 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Feb 2006to Mar 2008
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II
- Age between 18 and 50 years of age with 4 bilateral impacted third molar teeth scheduled for extraction under general anaesthesia
Who cannot join
- Clinical history or electrocardiographic evidence of heart block
- Ischaemic heart disease
- Asthma
- Sleep apnoea syndrome
- Impaired liver or renal function
- Alcohol consumption in excess of 28 units per week
Show all 11Show fewer
- Pregnancy
- Patient refusal
- Known psychiatric illness
- Chronic sedative or analgesic use, and regular use of or known allergy to dexmedetomidine, paracetamol or dextropropoxypheneopioids
- Patients with preoperative inflammation at the site of surgery were also excluded
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of Peripheral Dexmedetomidine for Bilateral Third Molar Surgery Under General Anaesthesia
Dexmedetomidine is an alpha 2-adrenoreceptor agonist, which provides sedation, analgesia and anxiolysis in clinical practice (Cortinez et al., 2004,Hall et al., 2000). Three types of alpha 2-adrenergic receptor subtypes are found in the human body and they have been designated alpha 2A, alpha 2B and alpha 2C. The alpha 2A subtype is most likely responsible for the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in both peripheral and central sites (Kingery et al., 2000, Smith et al., 2001). Activation of central alpha 2-adrenoreceptors in the locus ceruleus (Correa-Sales et al., 1992) and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord (Gaumann et al., 1992b) are responsible for both analgesic and sedative effects. Dexmedetomidine has a very high alpha 2 to alpha 1 selectivity, 1620 to 1, or approximately 8 times that of clonidine. It is also 4 to 6 times more potent than clonidine by weight (Bhana et al., 2000).
Although dexmedetomidine produces dose dependent sedation upon intravenous administration, its the analgesic effect is of dexmedetomidine is more variable and controversial. In an ischaemic pain model in healthy volunteers, a single bolus of dexmedetomidine produced a 50% reduction in pain scores when compared to placebo (Jaakola et al., 1991). In another volunteer study using the cold pressor test, dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.2 to 0.6 µg/kg/hour reduced pain by approximately 30% (Hall et al., 2000). However, when administered as a target controlled infusion at concentrations ranging from 0.09 to 1.23 ng/mL, dexmedetomidine had no analgesic effect in human volunteers subjected to heat and electrical pain, although sedation was produced (Memis et al., 2004).
Clonidine and dexmedetomidine are two common alpha 2 agonists used clinically. Although clonidine former has been used successfully in regional analgesia and anesthesia (Gabriel et al., 2001)., There are only very few studies evaluating the peripheral analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine. Since acute postoperative dental pain is a common analgesia model (Cooper, 1991; US Food and Drug Administration 1992), the investigators conducted this study, aiming to assess the postoperative analgesic efficacy of peripheral dexmedetomidine after bilateral third molar surgery under general anaesthesia. The analgesic effects were compared up to the 72nd hour postoperatively in order to evaluate any potential preventive analgesic effect.
Read the detailed description
The study protocol was approved by our local Institutional Review Board and written consent was obtained from all the participants. Eligibility for recruitment included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, age between 18 and 50 years of age with 4 bilateral impacted third molar teeth scheduled for extraction under general anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria included clinical history or electrocardiographic evidence of heart block, ischaemic heart disease, asthma, sleep apnoea syndrome, impaired liver or renal function, alcohol consumption in excess of 28 units per week, pregnancy, patient refusal, known psychiatric illness, chronic sedative or analgesic use, and regular use of or known allergy to dexmedetomidine, paracetamol or dextropropoxypheneopioids. Patients with preoperative inflammation at the site of surgery were also excluded.
After obtaining written, informed consent, patients were randomly allocated to receive 1)Preoperative IV dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of surgery; 2) Preoperative normal saline IV infusion and dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg infiltrated to wound or 3) Preoperative IV normal saline infusion and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of surgery. A computer generated random sequence was used for drug allocation and this was prepared by a statistician who was unaware of the clinical nature of the study. The patients were assessed by the list anaesthetist the day before surgery. They were fasted for at least 6 hours and did not receive any premedication before arrival at the operation theatre. Patients were educated on the use of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain assessment, where zero corresponds to no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable.
A P-deletion test was performed in the ward preoperatively. The P-deletionThis test consists of 58 lines of closely typed text containing between 74 to 97 occurrences of the letter "p". The patients are instructed to cross out every letter "p" they can find as quickly as possible, reading from left to right down the page. The number deleted in 180 seconds and the number of errors counts. This test assesses speed, accuracy, concentration, mental activity, hand-eye coordination and vigilance. It was firstly described by Dixon and colleagues who found it to be an accurate test for psychomotor recovery from anesthesia and sedation (Dixon et al., 1973).
On arrival at the operating theatre, a 20-gauge intravenous cannula was inserted in the dorsum of each patient's left hand. Either dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg (Group D) diluted to 4ml with normal saline or the same volume of 0.9% saline alone (Group P) was prepared by another anaesthetist who did not participate in patient management or data collection. Both preparations were clear solutions, therefore patients, medical, nursing staff, and data collectors were all blinded to the allocated drug. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were recorded (S/5 Anesthesia Monitor, Datex-Ohmeda, WI, USA) before general anaesthesia and thereafter at five-minute intervals from the time of commencing surgery until discharge from the recovery room.
Induction and maintenance of anaesthesia were done according to a standard protocol. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol titration of 2 to 3 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 µg/kg and muscle relaxation was achieved with rocuronium 1 mg/kg. The trachea was intubated via the nasal route. General anaesthesia was maintained with a mixture of air, oxygen and sevoflurane at 1 to 1.5 MAC. Before the start of the surgical procedures, regional anaesthesia were performed by infiltrating 2.7 mL of 2% lignocaine with 1 in 80,000 adrenaline around the base of the gum of each third molar by the same team of dental surgeons. Sevoflurane was stopped when the last suture had been inserted. andVolume of 1 ml of either dexmedetomidine (Group D, totally dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg for 4 surgical sites) or saline (Group P) was infiltrated to the submucosa of each surgical site. Neuromuscular block was antagonized with neostigmine 50 µg/kg and atropine 20 µg/kg, and followed by extubation after recovery of consciousness. The patients were then monitored in the recovery room for at least 30 minutes. Resting pain scores, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and the Ramsay sedation score (RSS) (appendix 1) were assessed and recorded every 5 minutes. Intravenous ketorolac or morphine would be administered upon patients' request. Patients were transferred back to the general ward when fully consciousness with normal physiological parameters.
The P-deletion test was repeated hourly from the first postoperative hour in the general ward until the performance reached the same level as that before surgery. Blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and RSS were monitored hourly for 4 hours. NRS pain scores were charted hourly for 6 hours then 4-hourly thereafter. Patients were prescribed two analgesic tablets, each containing paracetamol 320 mg and dextropropoxyphene 32.5 mg (Dolpocetmol®, Synco Limited, Hong Kong, China), on an as required basis to a maximum of four times daily. The patients were explained told that the pain medications prescribed could be taken if the postoperative NRS pain score was more than 3.
Final hospital discharge was at the discretion of the attending dental surgeon. The oral analgesic medication described above was prescribed for three days postoperatively and patients were given aA diary was given to our patients. diary to record NRS pain scores at rest and upon mouth opening, analgesic consumption and side effects were self recorded by each patient up to the 72nd hour postoperatively. Global pain satisfaction using NRS (zero being least satisfied and 10 being most satisfied) was recorded on postoperative day 3.
By considering a difference of 2 units in NRS pain scores to be clinically significant, and an estimated standard deviation of 2.5 units among patients, we calculated that a sample size of 30 per group would give an 80% power of the test at the 5% level of significance. In order to account for possible dropouts due to protocol violation or missing data, 35 patients were recruited in each group. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., IL, USA). NRS pain scores, analgesic consumption, NRS global pain satisfaction and the difference in pre- and post-operative P-deletion scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Perioperative vital signs and NRS pain scores up to the 72nd postoperative 72nd hour were plotted graphically using GraphPad Prism 4.03 (GraphPad Software Inc., CA, USA) and the mean area under the curve AUC were compared between groups using the Mann Whitney U test. All categorical data were analyzed using χ2 test. Time to first analgesic use was compared using the log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The incidence of side effects was analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate.
- Conditions
- Third Molar Extraction
- Being tested
- local dexmedetomidine, Peripheral normal saline, IV dexmedetomidine
- Keywords
- Analgesia, Dental pain, Dexmedetomidine, Pain, Peripheral effects
- Medical subject headings
- Agnosia, Toothache, Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
local dexmedetomidineDrug
Also called Precedex
Preoperative normal saline infusion and 1mcg/kg dexmedetomidine infiltrated locally to wound at the end of operation.
Peripheral normal salineDrug
Same volume of normal saline as dexmedetomidine is infiltrated and IV infusion.
IV dexmedetomidineDrug
IV dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg peroperative and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of operation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Local Dexmedetomidine | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: local dexmedetomidine |
| Normal Saline | Placebo comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: Peripheral normal saline |
| IV dexmedetomidine | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: IV dexmedetomidine |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Score at Rest
The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is used for pain score assessment at rest. It is a scale consists of 11 numbers in which 0 corresponds to no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable. The NRS pain scores over postoperative 72 hours is expressed as Area Under Curve using the trapezoid rule and compared among the 3 groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Measured: 72 hours after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Sep 2009 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2006
- Primary completionMar 2008
- Study completionMar 2008
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Third Molar ExtractionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 105 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Chi-Wai Cheung, The University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00971178
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 200807176008
- Status last verified
- Nov 2020
- First submitted
- 1 Sep 2009
- Last updated
- 11 Dec 2020
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Dec 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of Peripheral Dexmedetomidine for Bilateral Third Molar Surgery Under General Anaesthesia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00971178
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 200807176008
- Conditions
- Third Molar Extraction
- Keywords
- Analgesia, Dental pain, Dexmedetomidine, Pain, Peripheral effects
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 105 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2006
- Primary completion
- Mar 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2008 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Sep 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 11 Dec 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Dexmedetomidine is an alpha 2-adrenoreceptor agonist, which provides sedation, analgesia and anxiolysis in clinical practice (Cortinez et al., 2004,Hall et al., 2000). Three types of alpha 2-adrenergic receptor subtypes are found in the human body and they have been designated alpha 2A, alpha 2B and alpha 2C. The alpha 2A subtype is most likely responsible for the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in both peripheral and central sites (Kingery et al., 2000, Smith et al., 2001). Activation of central alpha 2-adrenoreceptors in the locus ceruleus (Correa-Sales et al., 1992) and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord (Gaumann et al., 1992b) are responsible for both analgesic and sedative effects. Dexmedetomidine has a very high alpha 2 to alpha 1 selectivity, 1620 to 1, or approximately 8 times that of clonidine. It is also 4 to 6 times more potent than clonidine by weight (Bhana et al., 2000).
Although dexmedetomidine produces dose dependent sedation upon intravenous administration, its the analgesic effect is of dexmedetomidine is more variable and controversial. In an ischaemic pain model in healthy volunteers, a single bolus of dexmedetomidine produced a 50% reduction in pain scores when compared to placebo (Jaakola et al., 1991). In another volunteer study using the cold pressor test, dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.2 to 0.6 µg/kg/hour reduced pain by approximately 30% (Hall et al., 2000). However, when administered as a target controlled infusion at concentrations ranging from 0.09 to 1.23 ng/mL, dexmedetomidine had no analgesic effect in human volunteers subjected to heat and electrical pain, although sedation was produced (Memis et al., 2004).
Clonidine and dexmedetomidine are two common alpha 2 agonists used clinically. Although clonidine former has been used successfully in regional analgesia and anesthesia (Gabriel et al., 2001)., There are only very few studies evaluating the peripheral analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine. Since acute postoperative dental pain is a common analgesia model (Cooper, 1991; US Food and Drug Administration 1992), the investigators conducted this study, aiming to assess the postoperative analgesic efficacy of peripheral dexmedetomidine after bilateral third molar surgery under general anaesthesia. The analgesic effects were compared up to the 72nd hour postoperatively in order to evaluate any potential preventive analgesic effect.
Detailed description
The study protocol was approved by our local Institutional Review Board and written consent was obtained from all the participants. Eligibility for recruitment included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, age between 18 and 50 years of age with 4 bilateral impacted third molar teeth scheduled for extraction under general anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria included clinical history or electrocardiographic evidence of heart block, ischaemic heart disease, asthma, sleep apnoea syndrome, impaired liver or renal function, alcohol consumption in excess of 28 units per week, pregnancy, patient refusal, known psychiatric illness, chronic sedative or analgesic use, and regular use of or known allergy to dexmedetomidine, paracetamol or dextropropoxypheneopioids. Patients with preoperative inflammation at the site of surgery were also excluded.
After obtaining written, informed consent, patients were randomly allocated to receive 1)Preoperative IV dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of surgery; 2) Preoperative normal saline IV infusion and dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg infiltrated to wound or 3) Preoperative IV normal saline infusion and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of surgery. A computer generated random sequence was used for drug allocation and this was prepared by a statistician who was unaware of the clinical nature of the study. The patients were assessed by the list anaesthetist the day before surgery. They were fasted for at least 6 hours and did not receive any premedication before arrival at the operation theatre. Patients were educated on the use of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain assessment, where zero corresponds to no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable.
A P-deletion test was performed in the ward preoperatively. The P-deletionThis test consists of 58 lines of closely typed text containing between 74 to 97 occurrences of the letter "p". The patients are instructed to cross out every letter "p" they can find as quickly as possible, reading from left to right down the page. The number deleted in 180 seconds and the number of errors counts. This test assesses speed, accuracy, concentration, mental activity, hand-eye coordination and vigilance. It was firstly described by Dixon and colleagues who found it to be an accurate test for psychomotor recovery from anesthesia and sedation (Dixon et al., 1973).
On arrival at the operating theatre, a 20-gauge intravenous cannula was inserted in the dorsum of each patient's left hand. Either dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg (Group D) diluted to 4ml with normal saline or the same volume of 0.9% saline alone (Group P) was prepared by another anaesthetist who did not participate in patient management or data collection. Both preparations were clear solutions, therefore patients, medical, nursing staff, and data collectors were all blinded to the allocated drug. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were recorded (S/5 Anesthesia Monitor, Datex-Ohmeda, WI, USA) before general anaesthesia and thereafter at five-minute intervals from the time of commencing surgery until discharge from the recovery room.
Induction and maintenance of anaesthesia were done according to a standard protocol. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol titration of 2 to 3 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 µg/kg and muscle relaxation was achieved with rocuronium 1 mg/kg. The trachea was intubated via the nasal route. General anaesthesia was maintained with a mixture of air, oxygen and sevoflurane at 1 to 1.5 MAC. Before the start of the surgical procedures, regional anaesthesia were performed by infiltrating 2.7 mL of 2% lignocaine with 1 in 80,000 adrenaline around the base of the gum of each third molar by the same team of dental surgeons. Sevoflurane was stopped when the last suture had been inserted. andVolume of 1 ml of either dexmedetomidine (Group D, totally dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg for 4 surgical sites) or saline (Group P) was infiltrated to the submucosa of each surgical site. Neuromuscular block was antagonized with neostigmine 50 µg/kg and atropine 20 µg/kg, and followed by extubation after recovery of consciousness. The patients were then monitored in the recovery room for at least 30 minutes. Resting pain scores, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and the Ramsay sedation score (RSS) (appendix 1) were assessed and recorded every 5 minutes. Intravenous ketorolac or morphine would be administered upon patients' request. Patients were transferred back to the general ward when fully consciousness with normal physiological parameters.
The P-deletion test was repeated hourly from the first postoperative hour in the general ward until the performance reached the same level as that before surgery. Blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and RSS were monitored hourly for 4 hours. NRS pain scores were charted hourly for 6 hours then 4-hourly thereafter. Patients were prescribed two analgesic tablets, each containing paracetamol 320 mg and dextropropoxyphene 32.5 mg (Dolpocetmol®, Synco Limited, Hong Kong, China), on an as required basis to a maximum of four times daily. The patients were explained told that the pain medications prescribed could be taken if the postoperative NRS pain score was more than 3.
Final hospital discharge was at the discretion of the attending dental surgeon. The oral analgesic medication described above was prescribed for three days postoperatively and patients were given aA diary was given to our patients. diary to record NRS pain scores at rest and upon mouth opening, analgesic consumption and side effects were self recorded by each patient up to the 72nd hour postoperatively. Global pain satisfaction using NRS (zero being least satisfied and 10 being most satisfied) was recorded on postoperative day 3.
By considering a difference of 2 units in NRS pain scores to be clinically significant, and an estimated standard deviation of 2.5 units among patients, we calculated that a sample size of 30 per group would give an 80% power of the test at the 5% level of significance. In order to account for possible dropouts due to protocol violation or missing data, 35 patients were recruited in each group. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., IL, USA). NRS pain scores, analgesic consumption, NRS global pain satisfaction and the difference in pre- and post-operative P-deletion scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Perioperative vital signs and NRS pain scores up to the 72nd postoperative 72nd hour were plotted graphically using GraphPad Prism 4.03 (GraphPad Software Inc., CA, USA) and the mean area under the curve AUC were compared between groups using the Mann Whitney U test. All categorical data were analyzed using χ2 test. Time to first analgesic use was compared using the log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The incidence of side effects was analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Local Dexmedetomidine | Active comparator | Drug: local dexmedetomidine |
| Normal Saline | Placebo comparator | Drug: Peripheral normal saline |
| IV dexmedetomidine | Active comparator | Drug: IV dexmedetomidine |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II
- Age between 18 and 50 years of age with 4 bilateral impacted third molar teeth scheduled for extraction under general anaesthesia
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Clinical history or electrocardiographic evidence of heart block
- Ischaemic heart disease
- Asthma
- Sleep apnoea syndrome
- Impaired liver or renal function
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| local dexmedetomidineAlso: PrecedexPreoperative normal saline infusion and 1mcg/kg dexmedetomidine infiltrated locally to wound at the end of operation. | Drug | Local Dexmedetomidine |
| Peripheral normal salineSame volume of normal saline as dexmedetomidine is infiltrated and IV infusion. | Drug | Normal Saline |
| IV dexmedetomidineIV dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg peroperative and normal saline infiltrated to wound at the end of operation | Drug | IV dexmedetomidine |
Primary outcome
Pain Score at Rest
Time frame: 72 hours after surgery
The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is used for pain score assessment at rest. It is a scale consists of 11 numbers in which 0 corresponds to no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable. The NRS pain scores over postoperative 72 hours is expressed as Area Under Curve using the trapezoid rule and compared among the 3 groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Dec 2020.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Third Molar Extraction
Recruiting
Comparison of Autologous Tooth and Bovine Xenograft in Periodontal Healing After Mandibular Third Molar Extraction
Periodontal Defects After Third Molar Extraction, Periodontal Disease
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Irrigation Solutions at Different Temperatures Used in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery
Third Molars Extraction, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life
Recruiting
Clinical Study Evaluating the Effect of Virtual Reality on Reducing Patients' Anxiety During Wisdom Teeth Extraction
Dental Anxiety, Third Molar Extraction
Recruiting
Comparison of PRF and Corticosteroids in Impacted Third Molar Surgery
Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction, Impacted Lower Third Molar
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Comparative Experimental Study Between Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine Regarding Efficacy in Third Molar Removal Surgery Under General Anesthesia
Third Molars Extraction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing local dexmedetomidine, Peripheral normal saline and IV dexmedetomidine in people with Third Molar Extraction, run by The University of Hong Kong.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 11 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Dec 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 11 Dec 2020). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain Score at Rest (time frame: 72 hours after surgery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Dec 2020; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.