ABSTRACT
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether apical patency increases postoperative pain after endodontic therapy. This study explored the degree and incidence of postoperative pain during root canal therapy, as well as the number of required analgesic doses. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature from the date of database inception until May 2023. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analysis. Twelve studies were considered eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain scores on days 1 (mean difference [MD] = -1.69) and 2 (MD = -0.85) differed significantly between the apical patency and non-patency groups. The odds for pain after 24 h were significantly lower (OR 0.59) in the apical patency group than in the non-patency group. Furthermore, the mean number of required analgesic doses was not significantly different between the two groups. In conclusion, apical patency significantly alleviated postoperative pain (low-quality evidence) and reduced the incidence of pain (moderate evidence). However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings.
Subject(s)
Pain, Postoperative , Root Canal Therapy , Humans , Pain Measurement , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Root Canal Therapy/adverse effects , Tooth ApexABSTRACT
The present research was aimed to develop a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method to determine oxaprozin in plasma and to evaluate the bioavailability of two oxaprozin enteric coated tablets. A C18 column was used to separate the plasma after protein precipitation and the mobile phase was methanol-12. 5mmol/L ammonium acetate buffer solution (pH=3.0)(71:29). The calibration curve was linear in the concentration range of 0. 50-70. 56 microg . mL-1, and the intra and inter-day RSDs were less than 12. 33% and 10. 42% respectively. A single dose of 0. 4 g reference preparation or test preparation of oxaprozin enteric coated tablets was administered to 20 healthy volunteers according to a randomized crossover study. AUC0-->264h were (4 917. 44 +/- 629. 57) microg . h . mL-1 and (4 604. 30+/-737. 83) microg . h . mL-1, respectively; Cmax were (52. 34+/-7. 68) microg . mL-1 and (48. 66+/-4. 87) microg . mL-1, respectively; Tmax were (18. 70+/-2.27) h and (19. 30+/-1. 63) h, respectively; The relative bioavailability of test preparation was 94.0% +/- 13. 7%. The method is simple, rapid and selective for oxaprozin determination. There is no significant difference in the main pharmacokinetic parameters between the test formulation and reference formulation and the two formulations are in bioequivalence.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal , Blood , Pharmacokinetics , Biological Availability , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid , Cross-Over Studies , Propionates , Blood , Pharmacokinetics , Tablets, Enteric-CoatedABSTRACT
This paper is aimed to study the bioavailability and bioequivalence of Cyclosporin Soft Capsules (test preparation and reference preparation) in Chinese healthy volunteers. A high performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet (HPLC-UV) method for determining the concentration of Cyclosporin A in human whole blood was developed and methodological validated. In accordance with the randomized two-period self crossover study, 24 volunteers received a single oral dose of 400 mg of test preparation or reference preparation. Multiple blood samples were collected post dose and then the concentration of Cyclosporin A in human whole blood samples was determined using the validated assay. The pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-t, Cmax, Tmax, and T1/2 were calculated using the non-compartmental method. The bioequivalence of the two preparations was evaluated. After receiving single dose of 400 mg of Cyclosporine A, the pharmacokinetic parameters of T1/2, Cmax, Tmax, and AUC0-t, of Cyclosporin A were (10.114 +/- 6.329) h and (9.717 +/- 4.076) h, (2021.235 +/- 298.581) ng x ml(-1) and (1992.192 +/- 1286.923) ng x ml(-1) (1.729 +/- 0.361) h and (1.813 +/- 0.323) h, (9824.811 +/- 1633.026) ng x h x ml(-1) and (10316.514 +/- 1395.955) ng x h x ml(-1) for test preparation and reference preparation, respectively. The statistical results suggested that these parameters were comparable between the two preparations. The results showed that the test preparation was bioequivalent with the reference preparation in healthy volunteers.
