This study aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the effect of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain reduction after lower third molar surgery. Nine databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Open Gray, and Open Thesis) were used as sources of research, including “grey literature.” The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Only randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen on pain during and immediately after the extraction of lower third molars were included, without restrictions of year and language. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias. The “Joanna Briggs Institute for Randomized Controlled Trials” tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Each study was categorized according to the percentage of positive responses to the questions corresponding to the assessment instrument. The results were measured narratively/descriptively. The initial search resulted in 3,257 records, of which only three studies (n=150 participants) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. All studies were published in 2019. The risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. Two studies found significant pain reduction within 48 h after the procedure. In conclusion, the use of preemptive intravenous ibuprofen for extracting third molars reduces pain and analgesic consumption after the surgical procedure.

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature, PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Scopus, LIVIVO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenThesis, and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations databases were used. Only randomized controlled trials without restrictions on the year or language of publication were included. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model estimated the combined relative risk (RR). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Initially, 2,337 studies were identified, of which 4 were considered in the systematic review and 3 in the meta-analysis (total sample: 796 patients). The studies were published between 2009 and 2017. All eligible studies had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the risk of VAP was 24% lower in patients receiving chlorhexidine combined with toothbrushing than in those receiving chlorhexidine alone (RR: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.06), with moderate certainty of evidence and without statistical significance. In conclusion, considering the limitations of this study, a standard protocol for the prevention of VAP is not yet recommended. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw strong conclusions. However, considering that toothbrushing is a simple intervention, it should be a common practice in mechanically ventilated patients, especially among patients with coronavirus disease.