Evidence Hub

Adverse events of oral analgesics after third molar extraction: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Magesty RA, de-Souza GM, Fernandes IA, de-Almeida RS, Meireles MR, Al-Moraissi EA, Galvão EL, Falci SG

Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026

5,306 participants

Abstract

Background: Choosing analgesics after third molar surgery requires balancing efficacy with safety. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare and rank the safety profiles, measured by adverse events (AEs) related to medication use, of various single-dose oral analgesic regimens.

Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single-dose oral analgesics following third molar surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of any AE reported before discharge. A frequentist NMA was performed to estimate relative risks (RR) and SUCRA-based probabilistic rankings. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using CINeMA.

Results: Twenty-eight RCTs involving 5306 patients were included. NSAID monotherapy demonstrated a significantly higher risk of AEs compared to other non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics alone. Conversely, few significant differences were found between most active drugs and placebo. Probabilistic ranking indicated that both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and placebo had a higher probability of ranking among the least safe options. Significant global inconsistency was detected across the network, and the certainty of the evidence was generally very low to low.

Conclusions: The safety profile of single-dose analgesics in this model is complex. While pairwise comparisons and rankings suggested that NSAIDs might be associated with a higher frequency of adverse events, these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,306 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free