Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42857250
Analgesic Efficacy of Celecoxib Versus Ibuprofen After Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Tumaiheer Dana Saleh, Buloushi Rawaa M, Alenezi Farah Ahmad, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.116000
Findings
Population Adults undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars
13 findings
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Pain relief and pain intensity difference 12-16 hours · SPRID/SPID | SMD -0.96 [-2.71, 0.79] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 434 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Overall pain score 24 hours | SMD -0.15 [-0.56, 0.27] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Pain intensity 12-16 hours · VAS | SMD -0.12 [-0.39, 0.14] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 216 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Total pain relief 4-8 hours · TOPAR/TOTPAR | SMD -0.01 [-0.51, 0.49] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 630 participants |
| Celecoxib (any dose or regimen) | Ibuprofen (any dose or regimen) | Total pain relief (TOPAR/TOTPAR) 24 hours postoperative · Oral surgery: surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars · Pain assessment scale: TOPAR/TOTPAR | SMD 0.36 [-0.00, 0.73] GRADE not reported 1 study · 114 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Total pain relief 12-16 hours · TOPAR/TOTPAR | SMD 0.20 [-0.38, 0.78] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 630 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Patients experiencing adverse events | RR 0.93 [0.65, 1.32] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 1030 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Pain intensity 24 hours · VAS | SMD -0.35 [-0.61, -0.08] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 216 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Pain intensity 4-8 hours · VAS | SMD -0.13 [-0.40, 0.13] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 312 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Pain relief and pain intensity difference 4-8 hours · SPRID/SPID | SMD -0.95 [-2.44, 0.55] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 434 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Patients requiring rescue analgesic medication | RR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 884 participants |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Overall pain score 12-16 hours | SMD -0.17 [-0.66, 0.33] GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Celecoxib | Ibuprofen | Overall pain score 4-8 hours | SMD -0.23 [-0.60, 0.13] GRADE not reported 10 studies |
Included primary studies 17
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Sukhun 2012 Preemptive analgesic effect of low doses of celecoxib is superior to low doses of traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. PMID:22421863 | 2012 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Malmstrom 2002 A comparison of rofecoxib versus celecoxib in treating pain after dental surgery: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and… DOI:10.1016/s0149-2918(02)80059-5 | 2002 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Malmstrom 2002 A comparison of rofecoxib versus celecoxib in treating pain after dental surgery: a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and… PMID:12462285 | 2002 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Akinbade 2018 Comparative Analgesic Effects of Ibuprofen, Celecoxib and Tramadol after third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial. PMID:30602637 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Al-Sukhun 2012 Preemptive Analgesic Effect of Low Doses of Celecoxib Is Superior to Low Doses of Traditional Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs DOI:10.1097/scs.0b013e31824cd4fb | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bassyoni 2024 Comparative Effect of Celecoxib, Diclofenac, and Ibuprofen in Controlling Postoperative Pain, Edema, and Trismus After Third Molar… PMID:38322092 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cheung 2007 Analgesic efficacy of celecoxib in postoperative oral surgery pain: A single-dose, two-center, randomized, double-blind, active- and… DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.12.008 | 2007 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cheung 2007 Analgesic efficacy of celecoxib in postoperative oral surgery pain: a single-dose, two-center, randomized, double-blind, active- and… PMID:18164917 | 2007 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Doyle 2002 Efficacy and Tolerability of Nonprescription Ibuprofen versus Celecoxib for Dental Pain DOI:10.1177/009127002401102830 | 2002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Doyle 2002 Efficacy and tolerability of nonprescription ibuprofen versus celecoxib for dental pain. PMID:12162474 | 2002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Isola 2019 Evaluation of the efficacy of celecoxib and ibuprofen on postoperative pain, swelling, and mouth opening after surgical removal of… DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.02.006 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Isola 2019 Evaluation of the efficacy of celecoxib and ibuprofen on postoperative pain, swelling, and mouth opening after surgical removal of… PMID:30853212 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Khan 2002 In vivo selectivity of a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor in the oral surgery model DOI:10.1067/mcp.2002.125560 | 2002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Khan 2002 In vivo selectivity of a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor in the oral surgery model. PMID:12152003 | 2002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Malmstrom 1999 Comparison of rofecoxib and celecoxib, two cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, in postoperative dental pain: A randomized, placebo- and… DOI:10.1016/s0149-2918(99)80045-9 | 1999 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Malmstrom 1999 Comparison of rofecoxib and celecoxib, two cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, in postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo- and… PMID:10566562 | 1999 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zamiri 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adults undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars | 1,090 patients (n=10 RCTs; 671 celecoxib, 419 ibuprofen); about half female; mean age 21.1 to 30.3 years; Nigeria, USA, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Iran, Finland; 1999-2024 |
| Intervention | Celecoxib for postoperative pain at any dose or regimen | Celecoxib 400 mg loading then 200 mg, single 400 mg, single or preemptive 200 mg, 200 mg twice daily for 5 days, 100 mg twice daily for 3 days (n=10) |
| Comparison | Ibuprofen for postoperative pain at any dose or regimen | Ibuprofen 400 or 600 mg (n=10) |
| Outcomes | Primary: postoperative pain (VAS) at 4-8, 12-16 and 24 h; additional analgesic efficacy measures TOPAR/TOTPAR and SPRID/SPID. Secondary: patients requiring rescue analgesic medication; patients with adverse events | VAS pain (n=5 at 4-8 h, n=3 at 12-16 h, n=3 at 24 h); TOPAR/TOTPAR (n=4 at 4-8 h, n=4 at 12-16 h, n=1 at 24 h); SPRID/SPID (n=2 at 4-8 h, n=2 at 12-16 h); rescue medication (n=5); adverse events (n=9) |
| Study designs | RCTs directly comparing celecoxib with ibuprofen | RCTs (n=10), all low risk of bias (RoB 2) |
| Timing | 4-8, 12-16 and 24 hours postoperative | 4-8, 12-16 and 24 hours postoperative |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | No | No | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | Yes | No | no |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | No | no |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |