Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

The Effects of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Used for Orthodontic Pain Management on Tooth Movement: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

11 March 2025

Posted:

12 March 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
A common side effect of orthodontic treatment is pain that is typically managed with acetaminophen or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, the optimal NSAIDs choice for orthodontic pain relief, balancing efficacy and minimal impact on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM), remains unclear. This review investigates the relationship between OTM and orthodontic pain and explores how NSAIDs affect OTM based on a literature search of studies published between 2004 and 2024. Results suggest that ketorolac, nimesulide, and diclofenac may hinder OTM, while aspirin, ibuprofen, meloxicam, and celecoxib show varying effects. Tenoxicam, nabumetone, etoricoxib, and parecoxib appear to have no significant influence on OTM, with etoricoxib presenting as a potentially fa-vorable analgesic. The methodological limitations of the existing studies necessitate further rigorous clinical trials to validate the effects of NSAIDs on OTM in humans.
Keywords: 
orthodontic pain
;  
orthodontic tooth movement
;  
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Dentistry and Oral Surgery

1. Introduction

Orthodontic pain is an unavoidable consequence and one of the most common side effects of orthodontic treatment. Numerous modalities, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, have been developed to alleviate orthodontic pain and discomfort in clinical practice [1,2]. The most commonly used pain management drugs for relieving orthodontic pain are acetaminophen (paracetamol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [3].
Acetaminophen is a widely used analgesic, but despite its structural similarity to NSAIDs, it lacks anti-inflammatory effects in peripheral tissues [4]. NSAIDs have been widely shown to be effective in managing orthodontic pain [5,6]. However, there remains an ongoing debate about their potential to slow down the rate of tooth movement and their use in the orthodontic field has been generally discouraged [7,8,9,10].
There is no clear scientific recommendation for the best NSAIDs with minimal side effects in orthodontic treatment that allows achieving professional precision and ensuring patient well-being in orthodontic care. Considering this, our study explores the relationship between tooth movement and orthodontic pain, describes NSAIDs used for pain relief, and assesses their impact on tooth movement through a comprehensive literature review.

2. Materials and Methods

An electronic search of the literature was performed using Pubmed and Google Scholar, as detailed in Table 1. This search employed specific keywords in English, which included: “orthodontic pain“, “orthodontic tooth movement”, “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs”. Articles included in the review for the analysis of the effects of NSAIDs on OTM were experimental and clinical studies describing the effects of local or systemic administration of NSAIDs on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) published between 2004 and 2024 with available full-text access. In contrast, articles were excluded if they were older than the included timeframe or had restricted access. The initial database search yielded a substantial number of articles; however, the rigorous application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria, refined this selection to a final set of 22 articles that met the eligibility requirements.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Orthodontic Pain and Tooth Movement

The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage” [11]. Orthodontic pain, specifically, refers to orofacial discomfort caused by orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and is commonly characterized as soreness, pressure, and tension in the affected teeth [12,13].
Pain is a subjective experience influenced by factors such as age, gender, and psychological well-being, which explains the variability in how patients perceive it [1]. Surveys of orthodontic patients indicate that pain is frequently reported as one of the most negative aspects of orthodontic treatment and a significant reason for considering discontinuation of care [13,14,15].
Orthodontic pain can occur at nearly every stage of treatment, including initial wire engagement, banding, wearing elastics, rapid maxillary expansion, braces removal, and separator placement [16]. Research indicates that orthodontic pain typically begins around 12 hours after applying orthodontic forces, peaks within 24 hours, gradually subsides over the next 3 to 7 days, and returns to baseline levels after approximately one month [12,16]. This pain can significantly impact patients' quality of life by impairing chewing and speaking abilities, inducing emotional stress, and even leading to temporary challenges with learning and memory [17,18].
Orthodontic pain is mainly caused by an inflammatory reaction in the periodontium, which accompanies OTM. When force is applied to the crown of a tooth, it is transmitted to the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone. OTM is a process in which the application of a force induces bone resorption on the pressure side and bone apposition on the tension side [19,20,21]. Under normal conditions, the movement is highly coordinated and the bone remodeling process is very efficient due to the coupling of bone resorption followed by bone formation. Alveolar bone adaptation to mechanical strains requires a minor reversible injury to the periodontium as part of a physiological process [22].
When orthodontic forces are applied on teeth, a cascade of proinflammatory mediators is activated due to the compression of the periodontal ligament, leading to cellular, vascular, neural and immunological reactions, which ultimately result in orthodontic pain and tooth movement [21]. Orthodontic pain and tooth movement are interrelated and dependent biological events with local inflammation being their common mechanism [17].
When optimal forces are applied on teeth, the vascular vessels are compressed and local ischemia develops [23]. Upon vascular compression and ischemia, anaerobic respiration is activated causing local acidosis. The proton ion H+ binds to sensory endings and elicits painful sensations which are transmitted to trigeminal neurons [12]. These painful sensations stimulate the release of several neurogenic mediators including but not limited to, substance P, which is responsible for local vascular dilatation and local inflammation [24].
Substance P stimulates the production of RANK-L (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand) that plays a critical role in OTM by regulating bone remodeling. It promotes the differentiation and activation of osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption. During tooth movement, increased RANK-L expression at the pressure sites facilitates bone resorption, allowing the tooth to shift into the desired position [22].
It is well known that the release of these neurogenic mediators stimulates the production of prostaglandins (PGs) in periodontal cells, enhancing inflammation and orthodontic pain, by binding to periodontal sensory endings [25]. Moreover, local acidosis and ischemia stimulate the periodontal cells to release nitric oxide, in order to increase vascular permeability [26]. Once vascular permeability increases, numerous leukocytes such as neutrophils, monocytes and lymphocytes are recruited and release abundant inflammatory mediators, that further amplify local inflammation and bone remodeling due to their ability to stimulate osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation [27].
As orthodontic pain progresses, endogenous opioid molecules are activated to alleviate pain and prevent damage in periodontal tissue, by promoting neovascularization and bone remodeling [28]. When orthodontic forces are reapplied, this process starts over [20,29].

3.2. Effects of NSAIDs on Orthodontic Pain and Tooth Movement

NSAIDs have been used for decades to relieve orthodontic pain. Their effectiveness as analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet aggregatory drugs has been confirmed [30]. NSAIDs diminish pain and inflammation by blocking the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX), which plays a key role in producing PGs. PGs are a group of lipid mediators derived from arachidonic acid, belonging to the family of hormones called eicosanoids. They are pro-inflammatory mediators that induce pain via sensory nerve endings and promote tooth movement by stimulating bone remodeling [2,30]. Among the various types of PGs, prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is highly effective in promoting vasodilation, vascular permeability, osteoclast activation, and bone resorption, contributing to accelerated tooth movement [8,31]. Certain NSAIDs may reduce this movement by inhibiting PGE2 [32].
PGs are synthesized by two COX isoenzymes: COX-1 and COX-2. COX-1 is a constitutive isoenzyme found in most tissues and organs, where it plays a key role in maintaining general homeostasis and operates without dynamic regulation. In contrast, COX-2 is an inducible isoenzyme that is absent in normal tissues and is expressed only in response to specific environmental stimuli [4,13,20].
There are different types of NSAIDs depending on how they influence the COX-enzyme production [4]. The main NSAIDs identified in the literature for orthodontic pain management are summarized in Table 2.
Non-selective COX-inhibitors, are the so-called ”traditional NSAIDs” and inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 isoenzymes. “Traditional NSAIDs” have several advantages such as analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy, improved function due to rapid pain relief, reduced side effects on the central nervous system and nevertheless a large variety of agents available on the market. Despite their value, their main disadvantages are related to gastrointestinal toxicity and antiplatelet effect [33].
In order to overcome the unwanted side-effects, especially at the gastric level, but keeping the desired anti-inflammatory effects, preferential and selective COX-2 inhibitors, known as ”coxibs” have been developed [4,13]. These drugs specifically inhibit the activity of COX-2 enzyme, which in turn blocks the synthesis of PGs that cause pain and inflammation. Unlike traditional NSAIDs, coxibs do not inhibit COX-1 activity, which is essential for gastrointestinal tract protection and platelet function [34,35]. This clear advantage of coxibs at the gastric level contrasted with a documented increase in cardiovascular risk, which seems to be dose and interval dependent. The negative influence of coxibs seems to be related to a thrombophilic effect due to an imbalance of prothrombotic and antithrombotic factors. However, studies suggest that short-term use of recommended doses of NSAIDs, including coxibs, does not have cardiovascular risks [35,36].
Several studies suggest that conventional NSAIDs may share the cardiovascular risks of coxibs. The MEDAL study compared the COX-2 inhibitor etoricoxib with the preferential COX-2 inhibitor diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. It found similar cardiovascular thrombosis risks for both drugs during long-term use. Coxibs also showed lower gastrointestinal risk while maintaining comparable efficacy and safety to conventional NSAIDs [35,37].
Inflammatory factors are crucial for tissue remodeling and tooth movement. However, many orthodontic patients take NSAIDs for pain treatment, which suppress COX enzymes and their generation of PGs, decreasing tooth movement rates [22]. This is why acetaminophen has commonly been recommended by many studies to be the best drug in relieving pain associated with orthodontic treatment [5,38]. Acetaminophen has a different mechanism of action compared to NSAIDs and can therefore not be classified as a NSAIDs. Whereas NSAIDs block COX-1 and/or COX-2, acetaminophen is thought to block a third isoform, COX-3, which is expressed only in the brain and the spinal cord, but its mechanism of action is still not completely understood [39]. As a consequence, acetaminophen has minimal effects on PGs synthesis and consequently bone resorption associated with OTM [5,30]. However, pain caused by orthodontic treatment is due to the peripheral inflammation that is much more effectively counteracted by the increased anti-inflammatory effect of NSAIDs.

3.3. Types and Effects of NSAIDs

Several studies investigated the effect of different types of NSAIDs on tooth movement, as compared to control/placebo groups or to administration of other analgesics. In the following section, the details of the included studies are summarized. Acetaminophen has not been described separately as it is not a classical NSAIDs. The results of the databases search, relevant to the topic of this review, are presented in summary in Table 3. A further summary of the effects of the discussed NSAIDs on OTM are detailed in Table 4.

3.3.1. Non Selective COX-Inhibitors

  • Aspirin
Aspirin, also known as acetylsalicylic acid, is a powerful NSAIDs that is utilized to effectively reduce pain, fever, inflammation and acts as an antithrombotic. Aspirin acts by irreversibly modifying enzymes COX-1 and COX-2 [30,58].
Olteanu et al. in their study on rats proved the existence of a significant decrease of OTM in the groups in which aspirin and algocalmin were administered, as compared to the control group without drug administration. Moreover, a statistically significant difference was identified by comparison of OTM between the groups in which drugs were administered, the value being more reduced in the group treated with aspirin. The histological study showed that in the control group, the alveolar bone displayed intense bone remodeling associated with orthodontic movement. However, in the group that received aspirin, no signs of bone remodeling were observed [40].
  • Ibuprofen
Ibuprofen is a propionic acid derivative and was marketed in 1969 in the United Kingdom as Brufen. It was first used as an alternative to aspirin because of greater tolerance [59]. The anti-inflammatory effect is achieved by blocking the synthesis of PGs in peripheral tissues [30].
Shetty et al., in their study on human subjects, analyzed the effect of ibuprofen and acetaminophen compared to the control group on PGE2 levels in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) during OTM. Quantitative evaluation of GCF samples collected from the subjects showed a statistically significant decrease in PGE2 levels in the experimental groups at 24 hours and 48 hours compared to the control group. A highly significant difference in the mean concentrations of PGE2 was observed between the two experimental groups at both time points. This compelling evidence demonstrates that ibuprofen significantly suppresses PGs synthesis in comparison to acetaminophen during the initial and subsequent days of OTM [32].
Arias and Marquez-Orosco compared in their study the effects that aspirin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen have on OTM and evaluated histologically the differences in bone resorption in the pressure area in rats treated with these analgesics. Similar to Olteanu et al.’s study, they concluded that NSAIDs such as aspirin and ibuprofen diminish the number of osteoclasts, probably by inhibiting the secretion of PGs, thereby reducing OTM [41].
However, Tuncer et al. showed in their double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study based on the effects of ibuprofen and acetaminophen on the level of PGE2 during OTM, that there were no statistically significant differences between the two analgesic groups regarding PGE2 levels. The authors concluded that OTM is a multifactorial process which cannot be controlled by only one chemical mediator. Short-term analgesic use during the most painful days of fixed appliance placement does not interfere with OTM. On the other hand, special attention should be given to patients with chronic illnesses such as osteoarthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis or gout where long term analgesic treatment is needed[42].
  • Ketorolac
Ketorolac is a NSAIDs commonly used to manage moderate to severe pain, as well as conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, menstrual disorders, and headaches.
Rodríguez-Montaño et al. conducted a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of of ketorolac and acetaminophen on RANK-L expression in GCF during OTM. They concluded that both ketorolac and acetaminophen may reduce bone remodeling and potentially interfere with OTM. However, they emphasized the need for further studies with larger sample sizes to determine the most suitable analgesic that effectively manages pain without prolonging the duration of orthodontic treatment [43].
  • Tenoxicam
Tenoxicam, an NSAIDs with analgesic and antipyretic properties, is used to treat osteoarthritis, backache, rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain [60]. Arantes et al. studied the effect of oral administration of tenoxicam on the OTM of maxillary canines in a randomized controlled double-blinded cross-over study compared to the control group. They concluded that tenoxicam did not influence OTM of the upper canines. The authors selected tenoxicam as an NSAIDs because its long elimination half-life allows for once-daily dosing, providing effective control of acute mild to moderate pain, such as that caused by orthodontic activation, without notable adverse effects [44].

3.3.2. Preferential COX-2 Inhibitors

  • Nimesulide
Nimesulide is a mild inhibitor of PGs synthesis and selectively targets COX-2. Its anti-inflammatory effect is achieved by reducing the production of superoxide by neutrophils and inhibiting the synthesis of platelet activating factor [30]. It is used to treat short-term pain after dental surgeries, sports injuries and primary dysmenorrhea [4,30].
A biochemical and histological study conducted by Tarvade et al. in guinea pigs showed that the administration of nimesulide and ibuprofen significantly decreased the rate of OTM and acid phosphatase levels in serum as compared to the acetaminophen and control group. Moreover, administration of nimesulide and ibuprofen significantly modified the appearance of osteoclasts as compared to the control and acetaminophen group, but was not significantly different when compared with each other. A high correlation was found between histological and biochemical findings. Thus, it can be concluded that the level of acid phosphatase in the serum reflects the turnover of alveolar bone during OTM [45].
  • Diclofenac
Diclofenac is a monocarboxylic acid derived from acetic acid that inhibits PGs synthesis by acting preferentially on the COX-2 isoenzyme. It has analgesic, antipyretic, and anti-inflammatory properties and it is marketed as sodium and potassium salts for oral administration [61]. It is one of the most widely used NSAIDs, being employed in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, spondylitis, toothache, dysmenorrhea, and inflammatory conditions following trauma or surgery. Diclofenac provides quick relief from pain and swelling [30].
In their study on rats, Knop et al. showed that administration of potassium diclofenac inhibited bone resorption during the initial period of OTM by presenting fewer blood vessels, Howship lacunae, and osteoclast-like cells histologically when compared to the control group. These findings indicate that potassium diclofenac suppresses bone resorption during the early stages of OTM[46]
  • Meloxicam
Meloxicam selectively inhibits COX-2 enzyme, having a more favorable side effect profile, compared to both “traditional NSAIDs” and pure COX-2 inhibitors. Although recent clinical research has demonstrated that the analgesic efficacy of meloxicam administered before separator placement is comparable to that of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, there is currently limited information regarding the potential side effects of meloxicam on OTM [62].
In their study on rats, Kirschneck et al. used cone beam computed tomography to quantify the OTM velocity after oral meloxicam administration. By inhibiting PGs synthesis, meloxicam appears to downregulate inflammation and RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis, resulting in a reduced OTM velocity of about 50%. This effect limits its suitability for use as analgesia during orthodontic therapy. However, the authors concluded that its good gastric tolerance profile suggests potential for future prophylactic use, warranting further study [47].
  • Nabumetone
Nabumetone is an effective NSAIDs prodrug that is rapidly converted in the liver into its active metabolite, 6-methoxy-2-naphthyl acetic acid. This active metabolite preferentially blocks COX-2 activity, being responsible for the therapeutic effects of nabumetone [63].
Villa et al. observed in their study on humans pulp-dentinal reactions, root resorption, tooth pain, and tooth movement after the application of a 4-ounce intrusive orthodontic force to human maxillary first premolars in patients given nabumetone. Their results showed that the use of nabumetone does not block OTM when compared to the control group [48].

3.3.3. Selective COX-2 Inhibitors (Coxibs)

  • Etoricoxib
Etoricoxib (Arcoxia) is currently the coxib with the highest COX-selectivity available and the only coxib particularly approved for the management of dental postoperative pain [49,64]. It has demonstrated excellent analgesic efficacy with significantly fewer side effects compared to traditional NSAIDs, as confirmed by multiple reviews [65,66]. Moreover, etoricoxib not only has the least inhibitory effect on tooth movement and minimal impact on the gastric mucosa and platelet function, but it also acts as a potent and long-lasting pain reliever during orthodontic treatment, being a potential alternative to acetaminophen [67]. A clinical trial by Gupta et al. that compared the effect of acetaminophen and eterocoxib to a placebo group confirmed that etoricoxib is significantly more effective in managing orthodontic pain than acetaminophen [13].
The experimental study conducted by Kirschneck et al. aimed to investigate the influence of different clinically relevant dosage regimens of etoricoxib on both OTM and cranial growth, since side effects of drugs are generally dose dependent. The study reported that OTM was significantly inhibited by about 33% only in rats receiving high doses of etoricoxib 7 days per week. In relation to its effects on orthodontic treatment, researchers found that it had no impact on the rate of OTM at dosage regimens used in clinical practice to treat orthodontic pain [49].
A further study by Kirschneck et al. found that clinically relevant doses of etoricoxib had minimal impact on osteoclast activity, trabecular number, and bone remodeling during OTM in rats, with only slight inhibition at high doses. They concluded that etoricoxib could be a viable alternative to acetaminophen as an analgesic in orthodontics [50].
Another clinical study conducted by Abdaljawwad et al. aimed to evaluate the effect of ibuprofen, acetaminophen and etoricoxib on pain control and OTM compared to the placebo group. The results showed that all three drugs had no influence on the rate of OTM through the whole alignment and leveling period, when used in recommended doses [7].
  • Celecoxib
Celecoxib is a highly effective COX-2 inhibitor, with low ulcerogenic potential, used to treat mild to moderate pain, due to its anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic actions [68].
Hammad et al. studied the effects of different analgesics (celecoxib, ketorolac, and acetaminophen) on OTM and bone resorption compared to a control group using immunohistochemical staining of matrix metalloproteinase-13 (MMP-13) in rats. OTM requires significant remodeling of the periodontium, which is believed to be initiated in the periodontal ligament by MMP. The number of MMP-13-positive osteoclasts was highest in celecoxib-treated group, which means that administration of celecoxib did not decrease bone resorption or impair tooth movement in rats compared with other analgesics tested in this study [29].
Another study by Stabile et al. analyzed the effect of oral administration of acetaminophen and celecoxib on OTM in rats and showed that treatment with both drugs when used for two days did not affect tooth movement. They concluded that short-term treatment with celecoxib may be a safe alternative medication for patients with acetaminophen hypersensitivity or hepatic disease [51]. Similarly, Jerome et al. concluded in their study on rats that oral administration of celecoxib during the application of orthodontic forces does not interfere with OTM and appears to offer some slight protection against root resorption [52].
A recent systematic review with meta-analysis suggested that in the five included studies that analyzed the effect of acetaminophen, aspirin and celecoxib in rats, the short-term (less than one week) use of celecoxib for relieving orthodontic pain might not inhibit OTM [2].
On the other hand, Gameiro et al. in their experimental study on rats rejected the hypothesis that celecoxib administration had no effect on OTM. Although celecoxib did not interfere with the number of osteoclasts, their activity might be reduced, supporting the conclusion that both short- and long-term administration of celecoxib inhibit OTM [53]. Furthermore, another study by Sodagar et al. showed that celecoxib injections decreased OTM and osteoclast count in rats compared to the control groups. They suggested that this might be the result of COX-2 enzyme inhibition and subsequent decrease in PGs production [54].
Gonzales et al. compared in their study on rats the effect of oral administration of high and low doses of aspirin, acetaminophen, meloxicam, celecoxib, and prednisolone in rats compared to the control group. Their result showed that only celecoxib suppressed OTM, while aspirin, acetaminophen, and meloxicam did not seem to interfere with it [39].
  • Other coxibs
A clinical study compared the effects of two different NSAIDs, aspirin and rofecoxib, on GCF volume and on PGE2 levels of the GCF during OTM in human subjects as compared to a control group. Rofecoxib was not found to affect PGE2 levels significantly during the experimental period, but aspirin inhibited PGE2 synthesis significantly more than rofecoxib in the first day of the experiment. These results suggest that rofecoxib can be used as an analgesic to control pain without affecting the outcome of orthodontic treatment, but the authors concluded that further studies are recommended [31].
On the other hand, de Carlos et al. showed in their study on rats that rofecoxib and diclofenac both significantly inhibited OTM, partially in the case of rofecoxib and totally in the case of diclofenac. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was found between the effects of rofecoxib and diclofenac [55]. A further study by de Carlos et al. compared the effect of injectable administration of rofecoxib, celecoxib and parecoxib on OTM in rats. Their results showed that rofecoxib completely inhibited OTM in rats, whereas celecoxib and parecoxib did not [56].
However, rofecoxib was withdrawn in 2004 from US and European markets by their manufacturer because of reports of increased cardiovascular events and skin rashes, respectively [6].

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This literature review examines various NSAIDs utilized in managing orthodontic pain during tooth movement. With the growing array of available medications, it is essential for orthodontists to stay informed, particularly about the mechanisms underlying each drug therapy and the clinical management of inflammatory symptoms customized to each patient. Moreover, patients could use NSAIDs for other medical conditions or independently of their orthodontic treatment, highlighting the need for orthodontists to be informed about their potential effects to influence the biomolecular pathways of tooth movement.
Traditional pain management methods rely on the administration of acetaminophen and NSAIDs. Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used analgesics for pain relief. However, its effects at the pain site are relatively weak and insufficient to provide substantial relief. While it has been shown to have no effect on tooth movement, similar to other non-opioid analgesics, acetaminophen exhibits a "ceiling effect," where in increasing doses beyond a certain threshold fails to enhance pain relief.
NSAIDs, on the other hand, achieve analgesia primarily through the peripheral inhibition of PGs synthesis, a key contributor to OTM-associated pain. However, NSAIDs may also reduce the rate of tooth movement. Concerns regarding the side effects of conventional NSAIDs have prompted the development of selective COX-2 inhibitors to mitigate gastrointestinal toxicity.
Findings from reviewed studies indicate that drugs such as ketorolac, nimesulide and diclofenac can decrease tooth movement, while aspirin, ibuprofen, meloxicam and celecoxib yielded inconsistent results. Conversely, tenoxicam, nabumetone, etoricoxib, and parecoxib appear to have no significant influence on OTM. Among these, etoricoxib emerges as a potentially favorable analgesic for orthodontic pain management. It may serve as an alternative to acetaminophen, which, while centrally acting on COX-3, does not impact OTM [39]. Additionally, etoricoxib’s longer half-life, requiring only once-daily administration, enhances patient compliance [13]. Its favorable safety profile reduces risks of allergic reactions, rhinitis, asthma, and liver damage often associated with high doses of acetaminophen. However, insufficient clinical evidence limits definitive conclusions about its safety and efficacy.
Variability in study findings likely stems from differences in experimental design, including subject type (humans vs. animals), drug protocols (oral vs. injectable administration), and tooth movement characteristics (analyzed tooth, method of evaluation). Standardizing key factors, such as appliance type, drug dosage, and administration period, is crucial for consistent results. Biological differences between humans and animals further complicate generalizations, highlighting the need for well-designed clinical trials to clarify these medications' effects on OTM.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M.C.S., H.E., A.P., D.F. and M.G.; methodology, I.M.C.S., A.P., M.S.S. and O.B.; software, A.P.; validation, I.M.C.S., D.F., C.D.O. and M.G.; formal analysis, M.S.S. and O.P.; investigation, I.M.C.S. and A.P.; resources, I.M.C.S. and A.P.; data curation, M.S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.C.S., A.P., D.F. and M.G.; writing—review and editing, I.M.C.S., M.S.S., C.D.O., M.P. and O.B.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, I.M.C.S., D.F. and M.G.; project administration, I.M.C.S., D.F. and M.G; funding acquisition, I.M.C.S and D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
COX cyclooxygenase
GCF gingival crevicular fluid
MMP-13 matrix metalloproteinase-13
NSAIDs non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
OTM orthodontic tooth movement
PGs prostaglandins
PGE2 prostaglandin E2
RANK-L receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand

References

  1. Hussain, A.S.; Al Toubity, M.J.; Elias, W.Y. Methodologies in Orthodontic Pain Management: A Review. Open Dent J 2017, 11, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, Z.; Mei, L. Escaping the Adverse Impacts of NSAIDs on Tooth Movement During Orthodontics: Current Evidence Based on a Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2016, 95, e3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lupse, I.; Muntean, A.; Chis, I.A.; Daniliuc, A.I.; Ghergie, M. Anti-Inflammatories and Analgesics in Paediatric Dentistry. Romanian Journal of Stomatology 2021, 67, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumaran, V.; Vignesh Prasad, S.M.; Sowmiya, R.; Sivaranjani, S.; Suganya, M.; Professor, A.; K Nattraja, J.K. Effects of COXIB in Orthodontic Tooth Movement-A Literature Review. International Journal of Research & Review 2019, 6, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartzela, T.; Türp, J.C.; Motschall, E.; Maltha, J.C. Medication Effects on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Literature Review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009, 135, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Souza, G.F.M.; De Barros Caldas, L.C.; Da Silva, G.S.M.M. Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Dentistry: Limitations and Adverse Effects. Revista Odonto Ciência 2016, 30, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abdaljawwad, A.A.M.; Al-Groosh, D.H. Effects of Various Analgesics on Pain Perception and Rate of Tooth Movement: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry 2022, 34, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Corrêa, A.S.; De Almeida, V.L.; Lopes, B.M.V.; Franco, A.; De Matos, F.R.; Quintans-Júnior, L.J.; Rode, S.M.; Paranhos, L.R. The Influence of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Paracetamol Used for Pain Control of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review. An Acad Bras Cienc 2017, 89, 2851–2863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Walker, J.B.; Buring, S.M. NSAID Impairment of Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Ann Pharmacother 2001, 35, 113–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kaklamanos, E.G.; Makrygiannakis, M.A.; Athanasiou, A.E. Does Medication Administration Affect the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Root Resorption Development in Humans? A Systematic Review. Eur J Orthod 2020, 42, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Raja, S.N.; Carr, D.B.; Cohen, M.; Finnerup, N.B.; Flor, H.; Gibson, S.; Keefe, F.J.; Mogil, J.S.; Ringkamp, M.; Sluka, K.A.; et al. The Revised International Association for the Study of Pain Definition of Pain: Concepts, Challenges, and Compromises. Pain 2020, 161, 1976–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Long, H.; Wang, Y.; Jian, F.; Liao, L.N.; Yang, X.; Lai, W.L. Current Advances in Orthodontic Pain. Int J Oral Sci 2016, 8, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gupta, M.; Kandula, S.; Laxmikanth, S.M.; Vyavahare, S.S.; Reddy, S.B.H.; Ramachandra, C.S. Controlling Pain during Orthodontic Fixed Appliance Therapy with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID): A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study. J Orofac Orthop 2014, 75, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fleming, P.S.; Strydom, H.; Katsaros, C.; Macdonald, L.; Curatolo, M.; Fudalej, P.; Pandis, N. Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Alleviating Pain during Orthodontic Treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, 12, CD010263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Krishnan, V. Orthodontic Pain: From Causes to Management--a Review. Eur J Orthod 2007, 29, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Panda, S.; Verma, V.; Sachan, A.; Singh, K. Perception of Pain Due to Various Orthodontic Procedures. Quintessence Int 2015, 46, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Makrygiannakis, M.A.; Kaklamanos, E.G.; Athanasiou, A.E. Medication and Orthodontic Tooth Movement. 2019, 46, 39–44. [CrossRef]
  18. Kaklamanos, E.G.; Makrygiannakis, M.A.; Athanasiou, A.E. Do Analgesics Used for the Pain Experienced after Orthodontic Procedures Affect Tooth Movement Rate? A Systematic Review Based on Animal Studies. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020, 23, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Muhamad, A.; Nezar, W.; Peter, P.; Pter, B. Influence Of Drugs On Orthodontic Tooth Movement. J Res Med Dent Sci 2014, 2, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alrehaili, R.; Alhujaili, A.; Alharbi, S.; Alharbi, L.; Alharbi, W.; Alkhattabi, R.; Alkhateeb, D.; Albisher, R.; Hakami, A.; Khalil, A. Medications and Orthodontic Tooth Movement: What Accelerates and Diminishes Tooth Movement? Cureus 2024, 16, e61840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ciobotaru, C.D.; Feștilă, D.; Dinte, E.; Muntean, A.; Boșca, B.A.; Ionel, A.; Ilea, A. Enhancement of Orthodontic Tooth Movement by Local Administration of Biofunctional Molecules: A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Pharmaceutics 2024, Vol. 16, Page 984 2024, 16, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.; Jacox, L.A.; Little, S.H.; Ko, C.C. Orthodontic Tooth Movement: The Biology and Clinical Implications. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018, 34, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Noda, K.; Nakamura, Y.; Kogure, K.; Nomura, Y. Morphological Changes in the Rat Periodontal Ligament and Its Vascularity after Experimental Tooth Movement Using Superelastic Forces. Eur J Orthod 2009, 31, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Levrini, L.; Sacerdote, P.; Moretti, S.; Panzi, S.; Caprioglio, A. Changes of Substance P in the Crevicular Fluid in Relation to Orthodontic Movement Preliminary Investigation. ScientificWorldJournal 2013, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ren, Y.; Vissink, A. Cytokines in Crevicular Fluid and Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Eur J Oral Sci 2008, 116, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. D’Attillio, M.; Di Maio, F.; D’arcangela, C.; Filippi, M.R.; Felaco, M.; Lohinai, Z.; Festa, F.; Perinetti, G. Gingival Endothelial and Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase Levels During Orthodontic Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study. Angle Orthodontist 2004, 74, 849–856. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gameiro, G.H.; Schultz, C.; Trein, M.P.; Mundstock, K.S.; Weidlich, P.; Goularte, J.F. Association among Pain, Masticatory Performance, and Proinflammatory Cytokines in Crevicular Fluid during Orthodontic Treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015, 148, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Liao, L.; Hua, X.; Long, H.; Ye, N.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, S.; Lai, W. Expression Patterns of Nociceptin in Rats Following Experimental Tooth Movement. Angle Orthod 2013, 83, 1022–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hammad, S.M.; El-Hawary, Y.M.; El-Hawary, A.K. The Use of Different Analgesics in Orthodontic Tooth Movements. Angle Orthod 2012, 82, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gargya, I.; Singh, B.; Talnia, S. NSAIDS (Non- Steroidal Anti- Inflammatory Drugs)- Their Effects and Side Effects in Orthodontic Therapy- A Review. Dental Journal of Advance Studies 2017, 05, 008–013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sari, E.; Ölmez, H.; Gürton, A.Ü. Comparison of Some Effects of Acetylsalicylic Acid and Rofecoxib during Orthodontic Tooth Movement. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2004, 125, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shetty, N.; Patil, A.K.; Ganeshkar, S. V.; Hegde, S. Comparison of the Effects of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen on PGE2 Levels in the GCF during Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Human Study. Prog Orthod 2013, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ong, C.K.S.; Lirk, P.; Tan, C.H.; Seymour, R.A. An Evidence-Based Update on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Clin Med Res 2007, 5, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nandakishore, R.; Yalavarthi, P.; Kiran, Y.; Rajapranathi, M. Selective Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors: Current Status. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2014, 11, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Katz, N. Coxibs: Evolving Role in Pain Management. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2002, 32, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gatti, D.; Adami, S. Coxibs: A Significant Therapeutic Opportunity. Acta biomedica 2011, 81, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cannon, C.P.; Curtis, S.P.; FitzGerald, G.A.; Krum, H.; Kaur, A.; Bolognese, J.A.; Reicin, A.S.; Bombardier, C.; Weinblatt, M.E.; van der Heijde, D.; et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes with Etoricoxib and Diclofenac in Patients with Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-Term (MEDAL) Programme: A Randomised Comparison. Lancet 2006, 368, 1771–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Krasny, M.; Zadurska, M.; Cessak, G.; Fiedor, P. Analysis of Effect of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs on Teeth and Oral Tissues during Orthodontic Treatment. Report Based on Literature Review. Acta Pol Pharm 2013, 70, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Gonzales, C.; Hotokezaka, H.; Matsuo, K.I.; Shibazaki, T.; Yozgatian, J.H.; Darendeliler, M.A.; Yoshida, N. Effects of Steroidal and Nonsteroidal Drugs on Tooth Movement and Root Resorption in the Rat Molar. Angle Orthod 2009, 79, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Doru Olteanu, C.; Şerbănescu, A.; Bianca Boşca, A.; Mihaela Mihu, C. Orthodontic Tooth Movement Following Analgesic Treatment with Aspirin and Algocalmin. An Experimental Study. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2015, 56, 1339–1344. [Google Scholar]
  41. Arias, O.R.; Marquez-Orozco, M.C. Aspirin, Acetaminophen, and Ibuprofen: Their Effects on Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006, 130, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tunçer, Z.; Polat-Ozsoy, O.; Demirbilek, M.; Bostanoglu, E. Effects of Various Analgesics on the Level of Prostaglandin E2 during Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Eur J Orthod 2014, 36, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rodríguez-Montaño, R.; Ponce-Gómez, Y.I.; Lomelí-Martínez, S.M.; Sifuentes-Franco, S.; Ruiz-Gutiérrez, A. del C.; Bayardo-González, R.A.; Martínez-Rodríguez, V.M. del C.; Meléndez-Ruíz, J.L.; Gómez-Sandoval, J.R. Comparison of the Effects of Ketorolac and Acetaminophen on RANK-L Levels in the Gingival Crevicular Fluid during Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Pilot Study. Applied Sciences 2024, 14, 1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arantes, G.M.; Arantes, V.M.N.; Ashmawi, H.A.; Posso, I.P. Tenoxicam Controls Pain without Altering Orthodontic Movement of Maxillary Canines. Orthod Craniofac Res 2009, 12, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tarvade, S. Effects of Analgesic & Anti-Inflammatory Drugs on Orthodontic Tooth Movement- A Biochemical & Histological Study in Guinea Pigs. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2013, 9, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Knop, L.A.H.; Shintcovsk, R.L.; Retamoso, L.B.; Ribeiro, J.S.; Tanaka, O.M. Non-Steroidal and Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Use in the Context of Orthodontic Movement. Eur J Orthod 2012, 34, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kirschneck, C.; Meier, M.; Bauer, K.; Proff, P.; Fanghänel, J. Meloxicam Medication Reduces Orthodontically Induced Dental Root Resorption and Tooth Movement Velocity: A Combined in Vivo and in Vitro Study of Dental-Periodontal Cells and Tissue. Cell Tissue Res 2017, 368, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Villa, P.A.; Oberti, G.; Moncada, C.A.; Vasseur, O.; Jaramillo, A.; Tobón, D.; Agudelo, J.A. Pulp-Dentine Complex Changes and Root Resorption During Intrusive Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Patients Prescribed Nabumetone. J Endod 2005, 31, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kirschneck, C.; Küchler, E.C.; Wahlmann, U.; Proff, P.; Schröder, A. Effects of the Highly COX-2-Selective Analgesic NSAID Etoricoxib on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Cranial Growth. Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger 2018, 220, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kirschneck, C.; Wolf, F.; Cieplik, F.; Blanck-Lubarsch, M.; Proff, P.; Schröder, A. Impact of NSAID Etoricoxib on Side Effects of Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Annals of Anatomy 2020, 232, 151585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stabile, A.C.; Stuani, M.B.S.; Leite-Panissi, C.R.A.; Rocha, M.J.A. Effects of Short-Term Acetaminophen and Celecoxib Treatment on Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Neuronal Activation in Rat. Brain Res Bull 2009, 79, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jerome, J.; Brunson, T.; Takeoka, G.; Foster, C.; Moon, H.B.; Grageda, E.; Zeichner-David, M. Celebrex Offers a Small Protection from Root Resorption Associated with Orthodontic Movement. J Calif Dent Assoc 2005, 33, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gameiro, G.H.; Nouer, D.F.; Neto, J.S.P.; Siqueira, V.C.; Andrade, E.D.; Novaes, P.D.; Veiga, M.C.F. Effects of Short- and Long-Term Celecoxib on Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Angle Orthod 2008, 78, 860–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sodagar, A.; Etezadi, T.; Motahhary, P.; Dehpour, A.R.; Vaziri, H.; Khojasteh, A. The Effect of Celecoxib on Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Root Resorption in Rat. J Dent 2013, 10, 303–311. [Google Scholar]
  55. De Carlos, F.; Cobo, J.; Díaz-Esnal, B.; Arguelles, J.; Vijande, M.; Costales, M. Orthodontic Tooth Movement after Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase-2. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006, 129, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. De Carlos, F.; Cobo, J.; Perillan, C.; Garcia, M.A.; Arguelles, J.; Vijande, M.; Costales, M. Orthodontic Tooth Movement after Different Coxib Therapies. Eur J Orthod 2007, 29, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ohashi, N.; Kohno, T. Analgesic Effect of Acetaminophen: A Review of Known and Novel Mechanisms of Action. Front Pharmacol 2020, 11, 580289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wong, A.; Reynolds, E.C.; West, V.C. The Effect of Acetylsalicylic Acid on Orthodontic Tooth Movement in the Guinea Pig. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1992, 102, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bushra, R.; Aslam, N. An Overview of Clinical Pharmacology of Ibuprofen. Oman Med J 2010, 25, 155–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khalaf, K.; Mando, M. Effect of Drugs on Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Human Beings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Open Dent J 2019, 13, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Altman, R.; Bosch, B.; Brune, K.; Patrignani, P.; Young, C. Advances in NSAID Development: Evolution of Diclofenac Products Using Pharmaceutical Technology. Drugs 2015, 75, 859–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Najafi, H.Z.; Oshagh, M.; Salehi, P.; Babanouri, N.; Torkan, S. Comparison of the Effects of Preemptive Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen, and Meloxicam on Pain after Separator Placement: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Prog Orthod 2015, 16, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hedner, T.; Samulesson, O.; Währborg, P.; Wadenvik, H.; Ung, K.-A.; Ekbom, A. Nabumetone Therapeutic Use and Safety Profile in the Management of Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Drugs 2004, 64, 2315–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Patrignani, P.; Capone, M.L.; Tacconelli, S. Clinical Pharmacology of Etoricoxib: A Novel Selective COX2 Inhibitor. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2003, 4, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Brown, J.D.; Daniels, S.E.; Bandy, D.P.; Ko, A.T.; Gammaitoni, A.; Mehta, A.; Boice, J.A.; Losada, M.C.; Peloso, P.M. Evaluation of Multiday Analgesia with Etoricoxib in a Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Postoperative Third-Molar Extraction Dental Pain Model. Clin J Pain 2013, 29, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Clarke, R.; Derry, S.; Moore, R.A. Single Dose Oral Etoricoxib for Acute Postoperative Pain in Adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014, 2014, CD004309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sandhu, S.S.; Piepho, H.P.; Khehra, H.S. Comparing the Effectiveness Profile of Pharmacological Interventions Used for Orthodontic Pain Relief: An Arm-Based Multilevel Network Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Eur J Orthod 2017, 39, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gong, L.; Thorn, C.F.; Bertagnolli, M.M.; Grosser, T.; Altman, R.B.; Klein, T.E. Celecoxib Pathways: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2012, 22, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Search strategy summary.
Table 1. Search strategy summary.
Items Details
Databases searched Pubmed, Google Scholar
Search terms used “orthodontic pain“, “orthodontic tooth movement”, “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs”
Timeframe 2004-2024
Inclusion criteria clinical and experimental studies, local or systemic administration of NSAIDs, full text articles,
English language only
Exclusion criteria duplicates, editorials, opinions,
correspondences, reviews, full text unavailable, articles not in English language
Table 2. Examples of different types of NSAIDs used for orthodontic pain management.
Table 2. Examples of different types of NSAIDs used for orthodontic pain management.
Types of NSAIDs Examples
Non selective COX-inhibitors Aspirin, Ibuprofen, Ketorolac, Tenoxicam
Preferential COX-2 inhibitors Nimesulide, Diclofenac, Meloxicam, Nabumetone
Selective COX-2 inhibitors Etoricoxib, Celecoxib, Parecoxib, Rofecoxib
Table 3. The results of the databases search.
Table 3. The results of the databases search.
Authors, year Study group,
sample size and distribution		 Substance
investigated		 Applied force,
movement		 Administration path,
Frequency of
administration, dosage		 Study duration Method of evaluation of OTM
 Outcomes Conclusion
1. Olteanu et al. [40], 2015 Wistar rats,
24, divided into 3 groups of 8 subjects each		 Aspirin
Algocalmin
 25 g from a nickel–titanium closed coil-spring between the inferior first molar and left inferior incisor Gastric gavage
Every 2 days for 10 days, the next day after device application
CG (group I): no intervention
EG1 (group II): 1.5 mL aspirin (concentration 20 mg/mL)
EG2 (group III): 1.2 mL algocalmin (concentration 5 mg/mL)		 28 days Histological study for size of bone areola determination (μm)
Distance from the initial position to the final position of M1 (mm)		 Reduced size of bone areola in EG1 (74) and EG2 (127) compared to CG (244)
Reduced OTM in EG1 (0.03) and EG2 (0.19±0.08) compared to the
CG (3.61±0.29)		 OTM and bone remodeling were more reduced in the aspirin group
2. Shetty et al. [32], 2013 Humans, 42, randomly divided into 3 groups of 14 subjects each Ibuprofen
Acetaminophen
 150 g from a nickel-titanium tension spring between the maxillary molars and canines, after extraction of premolars Oral administration
At the appliance activation, for 2 days, 3 times daily
CG: no intervention
EG1: ibuprofen 400 mg
EG2: acetaminophen 500 mg		 7 days Quantitative PGE2 levels in GCF samples from the maxillary canines using ELISA, before (T0) and after spring activation at 24 (T1), 48 (T2), and 168 h (T3) A statistically significant decrease in PGE2 levels in the EG1 at T1 (p=0.002) and T2 (p=0.011) when compared to CG.
A statistically significant difference in the mean concentrations of PGE2 between the two EG at T1 (p=0.006) and T2 (p=0.011)		 OTM was more reduced in the ibuprofen group due to inhibition of PGE2
synthesis
3. Arias and Marquez-Orosco [41],
2006		 Wistar rats, 36, divided into 4 groups of 9 each Aspirin
Ibuprofen
Acetaminophen		 35 g from a 3-spin loop made of 0.016-in beta-titanium alloy wire between the incisors Gastric gavage
Every 12 hours for 10 days, diluted in 0.6 mL of reverse osmosis filtered water
CG: 0.6 mL of reverse osmosis filtered water
EG1: 100 mg/kg aspirin 500 mg
EG2: 30 mg/kg ibuprofen 400 mg
EG3: 200 mg/kg acetaminophen 500 mg		 10 days Histological analysis of the bone

Average tooth movement of the incisors (mm)		 Reduced numbers of resorption lacunae/ osteoclasts during OTM in EG1 (1.86 ±1.15/1.83± 1.18) and EG2 (2.00± 1.61/2.48± 2.25) compared with CG (6.09±1.61/ 14.02±5.27) and EG3 (5.86±1.52/ 13.43±4.31) (p<.01)
Reduced tooth movement for EG1 (1.32 ±0.28) and EG2 (1.22± 0.29) compared to
CG (1.86±0.53) and
EG3 (1.80 ±0.41)		 OTM and the numbers of resorption lacunae and osteoclasts more reduced in the ibuprofen and aspirin group
4. Tuncer et al. [42], 2014 humans, 48,
randomly divided into 3 groups
CG-16 subjects
EG1-17 subjects
EG2-15 subjects		 Ibuprofen
Acetaminophen		 0.014-inch archwire, non-extraction Oral administration
Two tablets, 1 h before the appointment and 6 h after bonding
CG (group C): lactose placebo capsule
EG1 (group A): ibuprofen 400mg
EG2 (group B): acetaminophen 500mg		 7 days Quantitative PGE2 levels (pg/μl) in GCF samples from the maxillary canines with ELISA prior to bonding (T0), right after the bonding (T1), and on the first (T2), second (T3), third (T4) and seventh day (T5) after bonding The PGE2 levels in the CG/EG1/EG2 were:
T0: 22.33±17.21/ 14.53±13.27/16.14±12.59
T1: 16.81±11.69/9.27±4.81/ 10.89±10.53
T2: 17.33±13.53/19.30±17.25/16.66±14.39
T3: 21.37±24.33/14.52±13.78/21.78±40.11
T4: 17.66±14.90/9.96±7.16/14.63±11.35
T5: 16.18±10.08/11.59±11.84/15.91±13.705		 OTM was not influenced by 1-2 days of ibuprofen use as no time-related differences in PGE2 level were found between the groups
5. Rodríguez-Montaño et al.[43],
2024		 Humans,
24, randomly divided into 3 groups of 8 subjects each		 Ketorolac
Acetaminophen		 Elastic separator between the upper molar and premolar Oral administration
One capsule every 8 hours for 5 days
CG (Group 1): placebo calcined magnesia 500 mg
EG1 (Group 2): ketorolac 10 mg
EG2 (Group 3): acetaminophen 500 mg		 5 days RANK-L concentrations (pg/µL) from GCF of the right upper first molar mesial zone with ELISA analysis at four time points: before pharmacological intervention (T0), at 24 h (T1), at 48 h (T2), on the 5th day (T3) Increased RANK-L concentration at T1 in CG (0.146 ± 0.278) compared to EG1 (0.036 ± 0.021) and EG2 (0.047 ± 0.052).
RANK-L concentrations at T2 in the 3 study groups did not show a significant difference (CG:0.033, EG1:0.032, EG2:0.033)
At T3, RANK-L levels in EG1(0.188 ± 0.446) group remained lower than in CG (0.111 ± 0.118) and EG2 (0.041 ± 0.023) group		 OTM may be influenced by ketorolac through a decrease in RANK-L expression
6. Arantes et al. [44], 2009 Humans,
36,
randomly divided into 3 groups of 12 subjects		 Tenoxicam Bilateral retraction of the upper canine teeth after premolar extraction with a nickel–titanium spring.
Each retraction procedure consisted of three activations that were started on the right side and then alternated between the right and left sides at 14-day intervals 		Oral administration,
45 minutes before orthodontic activation, after activation, 24 h and 48 h after activation
CG: placebo tablets at all time points
EG1 (Group A): 20 mg tenoxicam + placebo + 20 mg tenoxicam at 24 and 48 hours
EG2 (Group B): placebo + 20 mg tenoxicam after activation, at 24 and 48 hours.
The rescue analgesic offered to the patients in all 3 groups was paracetamol, at a dose of 750 mg, up to four times a day		 4 weeks Measuring the distance between the canine and second premolar teeth with a caliper (mm), prior to activation and 4 weeks later The orthodontic movement was statistically similar between CG, EG1 and EG2 4 weeks after each orthodontic activation (the distance between the canine and second premolar was between 0.8 and 1 mm in all study groups) OTM was not influenced by tenoxicam administration
7. Tarvade et al. [45], 2013 Guinea pigs,
28,
Group I- 24 for biochemical study
Group II- 4 animals for histological study.
Group I and Group II were further divided into 4 subgroups		 Acetaminophen
Ibuprofen
Nimesulide		 A 0.014” spring with two vertical loops between the mandibular central incisors Oral administration,
12 hourly for 3 days
CG (Subgroup I and II (a))- no drug administration
EG1 (Subgroup I and II (b)) - acetaminophen suspension
EG2 (Subgroup I and II ( c)) – ibuprofen suspension
EG3 (Subgroup I and II (d))- nimesulide suspension		 3 days The tooth separation measurements were done between the mesial margins of the incisal edges of the two mandibular incisors using vernier caliper prior (mm) to placement (T0) and 24 h (T1), 48 h (T2) and 72 h (T3) after orthodontic appliance placement
Acid phosphatase levels from blood samples 72 h after orthodontic appliance placement
Histological study of the bone		 At T3, the mean tooth separation was found to be highest in CG (3.70±0.08), while minimal tooth separation was observed in EG2 (2±0.08) and EG3
(1.75±0.148)		 OTM, acid phosphatase levels in serum and the rate of bone resorption and appearance of osteoclasts were decreased by ibuprofen and nimesulide administration
8. Knop et al. [46], 2012 Wistar rats, 90,
randomly divided into 3 groups of 30 each		 Postassium diclofenac
Dissodium phosphate
30 g force from a nickel – titanium closed coil spring between the maxillary right first molar and maxillary central incisors.
Animals were sacrificed 3, 7, or 14 days after placement of the orthodontic appliance		 Intramuscular, daily
CG (control): 0.9 % saline solution
EG1: 5 mg/kg postassium diclofenac
EG2: 2 mg/kg dexamethasone dissodium phosphate 		14 days Histological analysis of the bone at the upper first molars by quantifying osteoclast-like cells, active Howship lacunae, and blood vessels and evaluation of bone neoformation Reduced numbers of osteoclast-like cells, Howship lacunae and blood vessels throughout all periods studied in the EG1 group compared to CG.
Osteoclast-like cells: day 3 (EG1:1.9 ± 0.74, CG: 5.8 ± 1.55), day 7 (EG1:7.5 ± 2.95, CG:16.9 ± 3.35), day 14 (EG1:3.1 ± 1.45, CG:3.3 ± 1.06).
Howship lacunae: day 3 (EG1:3.2 ± 1.03, CG:6.4 ± 1.98), day 7 (EG1: 5.8 ± 3.73, CG: 17.8 ± 2.57), day 14 (EG1:5.3 ± 1.95, CG:3.9 ± 1.98).
Blood vessels: day 3 (EG1:14.7 ± 2.58, CG:25 ± 3.02), day 7 (EG1:16.8 ± 3.01, CG:7.1 ± 1.45), day 14 (EG1:14.7 ± 3.4, CG:3.1 ± 1.98).
At all time-points, EG1 presented lower mature collagen deposition than CG: day 3 (EG1:5.5 ± 2.7, CG:10.78 ± 3.73), day 7 (EG1:29.8 ± 8.13, CG:39.55 ± 4.27), day 14 (EG1:96.9 ± 2.08, CG:100 ± 0)		 OTM movement is reduced by potassium diclofenac as it inhibits bone resorption during the initial period of OTM and consequently a delay in collagen maturation during bone neoformation
9. Kirschneck et al. [47], 2017 Fischer-344 rats, 63, randomly divided into three consecutive experiments of 21 animals (A/B/C) in three experimental groups of 7 animals each.
Experiment A quantified tooth movement velocity		 Meloxicam 25 g from a modified nickel-titanium closed coil tension spring. Between the molars and incisors Oral gavage,
10 days prior to orthodontic force
CG: no intervention
EG1: orthodontic force
EG2: orthodontic force with a daily oral 3 mg/kg meloxicam 		28 days Quantification of tooth movement velocity after 14 and 28 days of OTM by means of cone-beam computed tomography A significantly reduced mean tooth movement velocity was observed both within 14 and 28 days of OTM of M1 (day 14 -64%, day 28 -46%; p<0.001) and for mesialization of M2 (day 14 -51%, day 28 -54%;p<0.001) in EG2.
A significant reduction of mesial drift of the third upper left molar in an anterior direction was also observed following meloxicam medication (day 14-40%, day 28−35%)		 Meloxicam reduces PGs synthesis that subsequently causes a corresponding reduction of RANKL/OPG expression ratio and associated osteoclastogenesis, thus retarding OTM by about 50%
10. Villa et al. [48], 2005 Humans, 25, CG- 16 premolars
EG- 34 premolars		 Nabumetone 113 g intrusive force on the first premolars from a 0.017x 0.025 stainless steel archwire Oral administration, 2 days before the orthodontic activation and for 4 more days after
CG: two tablets placebo every 24 hours
EG: two tablets nabumetone 500 mg every 24 hours 		8 weeks Measurements with a digital Vernier calibrator (mm) on the initial casts of each patient and on casts taken after the orthodontic movement was made Intrusive movement was:
CG: 1.711 and EG:1.449 mm, with p=0.02		 The use of nabumetone does not block OTM. There was a decrease of only 0.13 mm per month
11. Kirschneck et al.[49], 2018 Fischer-344 rats, 40, randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 each Etoricoxib 25 g from a a modified nickel-titanium closed coil tension spring between the first upper left molar and the upper ipsilateral incisor Oral gavage
One week prior to start of OTM and continued daily until day 28 of OTM
CG: 1.5ml tap water per day for 5 weeks
EG1: normal dose (7.8mg/kg) etoricoxib 3 consecutive days/week
EG2: normal dose (7.8mg/kg) etoricoxib 7 days/week
EG3: high dose (13.1mg/kg) etoricoxib 7 days/week		 35 days CBCT imaging at the orthodontic left jaw side at the start and end of the experiment

 Anterior metric tipping of M1 was significantly inhibited (p=0.046) by about 33% only in EG3 (median=0.5 mm) compared to CG (median=0.8±0.2 mm) with a respective, but insignificant tendency also detectable for the normal dosages OTM is not influenced by clinically relevant dosage regimens of etoricoxib used in clinical practice to treat dental or orthodontic pain
12. Kirschneck et al. [50], 2020 Fischer-344 rats, 40, randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 each Etoricoxib 25 g from a a modified nickel-titanium closed coil tension spring between the first upper left molar and the upper ipsilateral incisor Oral gavage
One week
prior to start of OTM and continued daily until day 28 of OTM
CG: 1.5ml tap water per day for 5 weeks
EG1: normal dose (7.8mg/kg) etoricoxib 3 consecutive days/week
EG2: normal dose (7.8mg/kg) etoricoxib 7 days/week
EG3: high dose (13.1mg/kg) etoricoxib 7 days/week		 35 days OTM-associated dental root resorptions, osteoclastogenesis, trabecular number and periodontal bone loss were quantified by histomorphometrical, histochemical and microCT analyses of the disected tooth-bearing upper jaw sections Reduced trabecular number in CG (p=0.0849) and EG1 (p=0.0609), whereas in EG2 (p=0.2449) and EG3 (p=0.5786) this effect was not present.
Osteoclastogenesis and osteoclast activity were not significantly increased in any of the groups 		Etoricoxib in clinically relevant doses does not affect osteoclasto- genesis, trabecular number in the alveolar bone and remodelling associated with OTM. Only a slight inhibitory effect on bone remodelling is to be expected at high dosages.
13. Abdaljawwad and Al-Groosh [7],
2022		 Humans, 40, randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 each Acetaminophen
Ibuprofen
Etoricoxib		 0.012-inch archwire was placed for alignment as a starting archwire and the usual wire sequence was followed (0.014-inch, 0.016-inch, 18-inch NiTi) at 6 weeks visit intervals
 Oral administration, 1h before bonding and archwire placement and continued for 3 days including the bonding day
CG: starch capsules once daily
EG1: acetaminophen 500mg thrice daily EG2: ibuprofen 400mg thrice daily EG3: etoricoxib 60mg once daily		 4 months (24 weeks) Measuring the Little’s irregularity index (mm) in the lower arch, before bonding and at each archwire changing visit which was made every 6 weeks till the end of alignment stage directly in patients’ mouth using a four-digit caliper Mean mesial tooth displacement was: CG:1.3±0.544 EG1: 1± 0.28
EG2: 0.9± 0.155 EG3:1.25 ± 0.866. No statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was detected between the experimental groups at any time point		 OTM is not influenced by etoricoxib, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen when prescribed with their recommended doses for three days after each archwire placement
14. Hammad et al. [29], 2012 Rats, 40
randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 each		 Celecoxib
Ketorolac
Paracetamol		 50 g from a precalibrated closed Sentalloy coil spring between the upper left first molar and the two upper incisors Gastric gavage, once a day for 2 consecutive months
CG: reverse osmosis water EG1: 10 mg/kg celecoxib
EG2: 3 mg/kg ketorolac
EG3: 150 mg/kg paracetamol 		2 months Measuring the relative separation between M1 and M2 (mm) intraorally using vernier calipers before appliance insertion and immediately after sacrifice
Effect on bone resorption using immunohistochemical staining of MMP-13 		Mesial tooth displacement was:
CG:1.78±0.43 EG1:1.81±0.43
EG2:1.136±0.28;
EG3:1.08±0.27.
The differences were statistically significant (p <.001).
The mean number of MMP-13 positive osteoclasts was highest in EG1 followed by CG and was decreased in EG2 and EG3		 OTM and bone resorption were not influenced by celecoxib administration
15. Stabile et al. [51], 2009 Wistar rats,
30, distributed in 2 groups of 15 each		 Acetaminophen
Celecoxib		 Activated orthodontic appliance on the upper incisors (30 g on each tooth) that was left for 48 h (appliance group) or was immediately removed after insertion (control group)
 Oral gavage with 1 ml solution of drug 30 minutes before and 12, 24 and 36 h after fixation of the appliance
CG: without orthodontic appliance + carboxymethylcellulose
EG1 (CEL): celecoxib 50 mg/kg
EG2 (ACET): acetaminophen 200mg/kg
EG3 (CMC): carboxymethylcellulose 0.4% 		2 days Quantification of the interincisal gap (mm) by digitalized photographies of the maxilla using the Image J program In EG1 (1.11 ± 0.05) and EG2 (1.22 ± 0.04) the inter-incisal gap was not affected (p>0.05) as compared to the control groups OTM was not affected by celecoxib use for 2 days
16. Jerome et al. [52], 2005 Wistar rats,
20, divided into 3 groups		 Celecoxib 80g from a nickel titanium
closed coil spring with an additional spring eyelet between the first molar and incisors		 Oral administration in the drinking water
CG: no treatment
EG1: 25 mg/kg celecoxib
CG2: 50 mg/kg celecoxib 		2 weeks OTM was measured
as the distance between M1 and M2		 No differences were found
between the three groups of rats (0.5 mm/two weeks)		 OTM was not influenced by celecoxib administration
17. Gameiro et al. [53], 2008 Wistar rats, 32, divided into 4 groups:
Group I and II – 9 rats each
Group III and IV – 7 rats each		 Celecoxib 50 g from a closed coil nickel-titanium spring between the maxillary first molar and incisors Intraperitoneal injections, 2 h before appliance placement and postoperative doses for 2 days
CG1 (Group I): saline injections on days 1, 2, and 3
EG1 (Group II): celecoxib (10 mg/kg) twice a day, on days 1,2, and 3
CG2 (Group III): saline injections on days 1 to 14
EG2 (Group IV): celecoxib (10 mg/kg) on days 1 to 14		 2 weeks The distance between the mesial surface of M1 and the distal surface of M3 was measured bilaterally with an electronic caliper under a dental operating microscope
The osteoclasts were counted at the alveolar bone surface (compression side) adjacent to the entire mesial root by histochemistry 		OTM was significantly reduced in EG1 and EG2 compared to CG (p=.0009). The difference between times of treatment was also significant (p=.0430). The number of osteoclasts did not differ between drugs or times of treatment (p=.1230; p=.4014) OTM was reduced by both short- and long-term celecoxib administration
18. Sodagar et al. [54], 2013 Rats, 28, divided into 4 groups of 7 each Celecoxib 60g from a closed nickel-titanium coil spring between the right maxillary first molar and incisors, activated only once at the beginning
of the study		 Local subperiosteal injections in the buccal
mucosa of the upper right M1 at 72 h intervals starting from the first day of
appliance insertion to the 18th day (3 days before the end of the study)
CG1 (Group 1): no injections
EG1 (Group 2): celecoxib (0.3 mg
in 0.1 ml saline solution)
CG2 (Group 3): normal saline
injections (0.1 ml saline solution)
CG3 (Group 4): needle penetration
into the subperiosteal space without injecting
any solution 		3 weeks Measuring the space (mm) between the right M1 and M2
with standard
interproximal feeler gauge, before appliance removal to avoid any probability relapse
Histological study to evaluate root resorption		 OTM in EG1 (0.21 ± 0.06) was significantly lower than CG1, CG2 and CG3 (0.54 ± 0.08, 0.51 ± 0.04, 0.58
± 0.06, respectively).
The mean osteoclast counts significantly decreased in EG1 when compared with the other groups		 OTM and the number of osteoclasts decreased after celecoxib administration
19. Gonzales
et al. [39],
2009		 Wistar rats,
60,
randomly divided into 12 groups of 5 each
Aspirin
Acetaminophen
Meloxicam
Celecoxib
Prednisolone 		50g from a NiTi closed coil spring between the maxillary left molar and the incisors Oral administration (via drinking water)
CG1 (Negative control): neither pharmacologic treatment/tooth movement
CG2 (Positive control): no pharmacologic treatment, but orthodontic treatment
EG1: aspirin (high dose 300 mg/kg)
EG2: aspirin low dose (60 mg/kg);
EG3: acetaminophen (high dose 100 mg/kg)
EG4: acetaminophen (low dose 20 mg/kg)
EG5: meloxicam (high dose 67 mg/kg)
EG6: meloxicam (low dose 13 mg/kg)
EG7: celecoxib (high dose 16 mg/kg)
EG8: celecoxib (low dose 3.2 mg/kg)
EG9: prednisolone (high dose 0.67 mg/kg)
EG10: prednisolone (low dose 0.13 mg/kg)		 2 weeks The change in the distance (mm) between the most posterior point of the posterior border of the maxillary first molar crown and the most anterior point of the anterior border of the maxillary second molar crown on digitized lateral cephalometric radiographs Mean mesial tooth displacement was:
CG1: 0
CG2: 0.28
EG1: 0.24
EG2: 0.28
EG3: 0.25
EG4: 0.27
EG5: 0.25
EG6: 0.26
EG7: 0.16
EG8: 0.20
EG9: 0.07
EG10: 0.15		 Administration of high-and low-doses of celecoxib reduces OTM in rats, while aspirin, acetaminophen and meloxicam do not seem to affect OTM
20. Sari
et al. [31], 2004		 Humans,
36,
divided into 3 groups of 12 each		 Aspirin
Rofecoxib 		120 g from a nickel-titanium closed-coil spring between the maxillary canines and second premolars Oral administration
CG: no intervention
EG1: aspirin 500 mg, 3 times daily, for 2 days
EG2: rofecoxib 25 mg on the day of archwire activation and 12.5 mg on the next day		 7 days Evaluating the PGE2 levels (pg/L) in the GCF measured with automated enzyme immunoassay
GCF was sampled after the activation of coil spring (T0) and at 24 (T1), 48 (T2), and 168 h (T3) 		No statistically significant difference was observed between the rofecoxib and control groups at any time point.
PGE2 levels at T1 were: CG: 75.8 EG1: 64.7 EG2: 74.2		 OTM was not inhibited by rofecoxib administration in the first day of experiment
21. De Carlos et al. [55], 2006 Wistar rats, 42, divided into 6 groups of 7 each Diclofenac sodium
Rofecoxib 		50 or 100 g from a unilateral closed-coil spring, stretched between the maxillary left first molar and the incisor injections in the maxillary gingiva, close to the first molar
CG1 (CG-50): 50g force and 0.9% saline-solution injections
EG1 (R-50): 50g force and 2 injections of 1 mg/kg bw of rofecoxib, on day 1 and day 3
EG2 (D-50): 50g force, 10 mg/kg bw diclofenac
CG2 (CG-100): 100g force and same saline solution injection
EG3 (R-100): 100g force and same rofecoxib treatment EG4 (D-100): 100g force and same diclofenac treatment		 10 days The distance between the first and second molar (mm) on lateral cranial teleradiographic images Mesial tooth displacement was: CG1:0.43±0.13 CG2:0.72±0.14 EG3:0.19±0.13
No movement was found in EG1, EG2 and EG4		 Using selective COX-2 inhibitors rather than nonspecific COX inhibitors to avoid interference with OTM seems to be no advantage, since both have an inhibitory effect on OTM
22. De Carlos et al.[56], 2007 Wistar rats, 28, divided into 4 groups

CG-12 rats
EG1-5 rats
EG2-6 rats
EG3-5 rats		 Rofecoxib
Celecoxib
Parecoxib		 50 g from a unilateral closed-coil spring, stretched between the maxillary left first molar and the incisor
3 injections in the maxillary gingiva, close to the first molar, on the day of appliance placement, at day 3 and day 5 by dissolving tablets in saline solution
CG: equivolumetric 0.9 per cent saline solution
EG1: 0.5 mg/kg bw of Rofecoxib
EG2: 8 mg/kg bw Celecoxib
EG3: 25 mg/kg bw Parecoxib		 10 days The distance between the first and second molar (mm) on lateral cranial teleradiographic images Mesial tooth displacement was: CG:0.33±0.07 EG2:0.42±0.09 EG3:0.22±0.04
No movement was found in EG1		 Celecoxib and Parecoxib, but not Rofecoxib, are appropriate for discomfort and pain relief while avoiding interference during OTM
bw – bodyweight, CBCT – cone beam computed tomography, COX – cyclooxygenase, CG – control group, CT – computed tomography, EG – experimental group, ELISA - enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, g – grams, GCF – gingival crevicular fluid, h – hour, kg – kilograms, M – molar, mg- milligrams, mm - millimeters, ml – mililiters, µg – micrograms, MMP- metalloproteinase, OPG – osteoprotegerin, OTM – orthodontic tooth movement, pg/L – picogram/liter, PGE2 – prostaglandin 2, RANK–L - Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand, T - time.
Table 4. Type of included studies and the effects of the discussed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on orthodontic tooth movement.
Table 4. Type of included studies and the effects of the discussed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on orthodontic tooth movement.
NSAIDs Type of study Effect on OTM
Aspirin Clinical [31] Decreased
Experimental (rats) [40,41] Decreased
Experimental (rats) [39] No influence
Ibuprofen Clinical [32] Decreased
Experimental (rats) [41] Decreased
Experimental (guinea pigs) [45] Decreased
Clinical [7,42] No influence
Ketorolac Experimental (rats) [29] Decreased
Clinical [43] Decreased
Tenoxicam Clinical [57] No influence
Nimesulide Experimental (guinea pigs) [45] Decreased
Diclofenac Experimental (rats) [46,55] Decreased
Meloxicam Experimental (rats) [47] Decreased
Experimental (rats) [39] No influence
Nabumetone Clinical [48] No influence
Etoricoxib Clinical [7] No influence
Experimental (rats) [49,50] No influence
Celecoxib Experimental (rats) [29,51,52,56] No influence
Experimental (rats) [39,53,54] Decreased
Rofecoxib Clinical [31] No influence
Experimental (rats) [55,56] Decreased
Parecoxib Experimental (rats) [56] No influence
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Downloads

35

Views

37

Comments

0

Subscription

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

Email

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated