European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 215–218

Pharmacokinetics of parenteral paracetamol and its analgesic effects in post-operative dental pain

  • R. A. Seymour
  • M. D. Rawlins
Originals

Summary

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial was undertaken to compare the analgesic effects of a single dose of paracetamol (1000 mg i. v.) with placebo in the immediate post-operative period following removal of impacted lower third molars. There was no significant difference in the pain relief between paracetamol and placebo in the first hour following injection. Thereafter, there was significantly less pain (P<0.05) after treatment with paracetamol than after placebo. Plasma concentrations of paracetamol were measured and pharmacokinetic variables were determined. Over the four hour period of investigation there was no clear relationship between analgesia and paracetamol concentration in either central or peripheral compartments.

Key words

paracetamol acetaminophen dental pain pharmacokinetics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aitken RCB (1969) Measurement of feeling using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 62: 989–993Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Album B, Olsen I, Lokken P (1977) Bilateral surgical removal of impacted 8/8 as a model for drug evaluation: a test with oxyphenbutazone. Int J Oral Surg 6: 177–189Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berkowitz BA, Asling MD, Shnider SM, Way EL (1969) Relationship of pentazocine plasma levels to pharmacological activity in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 10: 320–328Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper SA, Beaver WT (1976) A model to evaluate mild analgesics in oral surgery. Clin Pharmacol Ther 20: 241–250Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings AJ, King ML, Martin BK (1967) A kinetic study of drug elimination: the excretion of paracetamol and its metabolites in man. Br J Pharmacol 29: 150–157Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira SM, Vane JR (1974) New aspects of the mode of action of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs. Annu Rev Pharmacol 14: 57–73Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibaldi M, Perrier D (1977) Pharmacokinetics. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heading RC, Nimmo J, Prescott LF, Tothill P (1973) The dependence of paracetamol absorption on the rate of gastric emptying. Br J Pharmacol 47: 415–421Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch-Weser J (1976) Drug therapy — acetaminophen. N Engl J Med 295: 1297–1300Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lokken P, Olsen I, Bruaset I, Norman-Pederson K (1975) Bilateral surgical removal of impacted lower third molars as a model for drug evaluation: a test with Ibuprofen. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8: 208–216Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Masson AHB (1966) The value and limitations of subjective assessment of pain and analgesia. Proc R Soc Med 59: (Suppl) 81–84Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nayman J (1979) Measurement and control of post-operative pain. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 61: 419–426Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prescott LF (1971) The gas-liquid chromatographic estimation of phenacetin and paracetamol in plasma and urine. J Pharm Pharmacol 23: 111–115Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rawlins MD, Henderson DB, Hijab AR (1977) Pharmacokinetics of paracetamol (acetaminophen) after intravenous and oral administration. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 11: 283–286Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ (1976) The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31: 1191–1198Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riggs DS (1963) The mathematical approach to physiological problems. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skjelbred P, Album B, Lokken P (1977) Acetylsalicylic acid v's paracetamol: effects on post-operative course. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 12: 257–264Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skjelbred P, Lokken P (1979) Paracetamol versus placebo: effects on post-operative course. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 15: 27–33Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sveen K, Gilhuus-Moe O (1975) Paracetamol/codeine in relieving pain following removal of impacted third molars. Int J Oral Surg 4: 258–266Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Gool AV, Ten-Bosch JJ, Boering G (1977) Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J Oral Surg 6: 29–37Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Seymour
    • 1
  • M. D. Rawlins
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Operative Dental SurgeryUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneEngland
  2. 2.Wolfson Unit of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneEngland

Personalised recommendations