## 3 Results  
A total of 22 patients (12 females and 10 males) were recruited in this study, with 11 patients included in each group (Figure 3). A total of 16 patients (72.7%) were subjected to the surgical extraction of the left lower third molar (tooth no. 3.8), and 6 patients (27.3%) underwent the extraction of the right third molar (tooth no. 4.8). In the TG, the patients were distributed as follows: eight females (72.7%) and three males (27.3%). The left lower third molar (tooth no. 3.8) was extracted in 10 patients, and the right lower third molar (tooth no. 4.8) was extracted in 1 patient. In the CG, the patients  
Figure 3: Consort flowchart of the allocation of patients in the Test Group (TG) and Control Group (CG). were distributed as follows: four females (36.4%) and seven males (63.6%). The left lower third molar was extracted in six patients, and the right lower third molar was extracted in five patients. The surgical intervention durations were similar for both the TG and CG, with a minimum of 15 min, a maximum of 45 min, and an average of 30 min. Table 2 shows the results of the descriptive and statistical analysis. The data analysis showed that the two groups were homogeneous, as they were composed of participants who showed similar characteristics in terms of gender (\(\chi^{2}_{(1)}=2.93\); \(p=0.198\)) and the side of the extracted tooth (\(\chi^{2}_{(1)}=3.67\); \(p=0.194\)). For the assessment of pain level via the NRS, the average score in the TG was 3.91 on day 0, while it was 6.45 in the CG. On day 1, the average score was 3.36 and 5.55 in the TG and CG respectively. On day 3, the average score was 2.59 in TG and 4.18 in the CG. On day 7, the average score was 0.55 in the TG and 2.73 in the CG. A statistically significant difference was observed between groups for the average of the NRS scores on day 0 (t\({}_{(20)}=-2.48\); \(p=0.022\); \(\eta^{2}=0.236\)), day 1 (t\({}_{(20)}=-2.11\); \(p=0.047\); \(\eta^{2}=0.183\)), and day 7 (t\({}_{(20)}=-2.45\); \(p=0.028\); \(\eta^{2}=0.232\)), while no significant difference was found on day 3 (t\({}_{(20)}=-1.49\); \(p=0.153\); \(\eta^{2}=0.099\)) (Figure 4). The two-way ANOVA test revealed a significant effect of the group factor, as the CT had greater pain on average than the TG. A significant effect of the time factor was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Test Group (TG)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Control Group (CG)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fisher’s**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(n=11\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(n=11\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(n=22\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Exact Test**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline
**Gender:**\(n\) (\(\%\)) & & & & & \\ Female & 8 (72.73) & 4 (36.36) & 12 (54.55) & 2.93 & 0.198 \\ Male & 3 (27.27) & 7 (63.63) & 10 (45.45) & & \\
**Extracted Tooth:**\(n\) (\(\%\)) & & & & & \\
4.8 & 1 (9.09) & 5 (45.45) & 6 (27.27) & 3.67 & 0.194 \\
3.8 & 10 (90.91) & 6 (54.55) & 16 (72.73) & & \\
**Numeric Rating Scale** & & & & & \\
**(NRS):** average (SD \({}^{1}\)) & & & & \(t\)**-test** & \(p\)**-value** \\ Day 0 & 3.91 (2.34) & 6.45 (2.46) & 5.18 (2.68) & \(-2.48\) & **0.022** \\ Day 1 & 3.36 (2.54) & 5.55 (2.30) & 4.45 (2.61) & \(-2.11\) & **0.047** \\ Day 3 & 2.59 (2.25) & 4.18 (2.75) & 3.39 (2.58) & \(-1.49\) & 0.153 \\ Day 7 & 0.55 (1.21) & 2.73 (2.69) & 1.64 (2.32) & \(-2.45\) & **0.028** \\
**Patients’ Daily Activities** & & & & & \\
**Questionnaire:** average (SD) & 8.27 (7.36) & 12.72 (8.57) & 10.5 (8.12) & \(-1.31\) & 0.206 \\
**Painkiller Intake:** average (SD) & 4.36 (3.14) & 8.18 (5.34) & 6.27 (4.70) & \(-2.04\) & 0.054 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Standard deviation (SD).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The results of the descriptive and statistical analysis. Figure 4: The average pain scores determined via the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on day 0, day 1, day 3, and day 7 in the Test Group (TG) and Control Group (CG).