Сlinical evaluation of the efficacy of firocoxib in dental and maxillofacial surgery in dogs

Relevance. To evaluate the efficacy of firocoxib as part of comprehensive postoperative therapy in dogs undergoing total tooth extraction due to stage III–IV periodontal disease and surgical treatment of mandibular symphyseal fractures, and to compare its clinical effectiveness with meloxicam.

Methods. The study was conducted at the Veterinary Center “Chetyre Lapy” (Korolev, Moscow Region, Russian Federation) from July 2025 to April 2026. A total of 47 dogs of various breeds, ages, and sexes were included. Thirty-four dogs underwent total tooth extraction because of advanced periodontal disease, while thirteen dogs received surgical treatment of mandibular symphyseal fractures using cerclage wire fixation. All animals received regional anesthesia of the maxillary and mandibular nerve branches with articaine as part of multimodal analgesia. Postoperative management included amoxicillin therapy and administration of either firocoxib or meloxicam. Treatment efficacy was assessed based on postoperative pain severity, appetite recovery, postoperative swelling, and the occurrence of complications.

Results. In dogs receiving firocoxib after total tooth extraction, severe postoperative pain within 24 hours was observed in 15.8% of animals compared to 40.0% in the meloxicam group. Spontaneous food intake during the first postoperative day was maintained in 84.2% of dogs treated with firocoxib and in 60.0% of dogs treated with meloxicam. Recovery of normal feeding behavior occurred faster in the firocoxib group both after dental procedures (1.8 ± 0.4 vs. 3.1 ± 0.8 days) and after mandibular symphyseal fracture repair (2.1 ± 0.6 vs. 3.8 ± 1.1 days). No adverse effects associated with firocoxib administration were observed.

Conclusions. Firocoxib administered at a dose of 5 mg/kg provides effective control of postoperative pain and inflammation in dogs undergoing dental and maxillofacial surgical procedures. The drug promotes faster recovery of feeding behavior, reduces the need for additional analgesia, and demonstrates good tolerability. The findings support the use of firocoxib as a valuable component of multimodal analgesia in veterinary dentistry and maxillofacial surgery.

1. Wallis C., Holcombe L.J. A review of the frequency and impact of periodontal disease in dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2020; 61(9): 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13218

2. O’Neill D.G., Mitchell C.E., Humphrey J., Church D.B., Brodbelt D.C., Pegram C. Epidemiology of periodontal disease in dogs in the UK primary-care veterinary setting. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2021; 62(12): 1051–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13405

3. Stella J.L., Bauer A.E., Croney C.C. A cross-sectional study to estimate prevalence of periodontal disease in a population of dogs (Canis familiaris) in commercial breeding facilities in Indiana and Illinois. PLOS One. 2018; 13(1): e0191395. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191395

4. Kortegaard H.E., Eriksen T., Baelum V. Periodontal disease in research beagle dogs — an epidemiological study. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2008; 49(12): 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2008.00609.x

5. Bychkov V., Kontcevaya S., Makarov I. Diagnostics in veterinary dentistry. Hippology and Veterinary Medicine. 2017; (1): 31–37 (in Russian). EDN YIRGAJ

6. Niemiec B.A. et al. World Small Animal Veterinary Association Global Dental Guidelines. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2020; 61(7): E36–E161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13132

7. Frolov V.V., Kopchekchi M.E., Ziruk I.V., Egunova A.V., Kudinov A.V. Abfractive lesions of teeth in dogs. Agrarian science. 2023; (1): 27‒30 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2023-366-1-27-30

8. Mathews K. et al. Guidelines for Recognition, Assessment and Treatment of Pain. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2014; 55(6): E10–E68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12200

9. Jones T.L., Cediel R., Wolff S., Thomas K., Hofmeister E.H. Post-operative Pain Assessment Following Tooth Extraction Using Liposomal Encapsulated Bupivacaine as a Local Anesthetic in Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 2025; 42(1): 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/08987564231161226

10. Monteiro-Steagall B.P., Steagall P.V.M., Lascelles B.D.X. Systematic Review of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Induced Adverse Effects in Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2013; 27(5): 1011–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.12127

11. Orobets V.A., Kastarnova E.S., Mukaseev S.V., Zeynalov O.A. Pharmacotoxicological characteristics of a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for veterinary use Firocoxib-ASTRA® tablets. Russian veterinary journal. 2025; (1): 27–35 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.32416/2500-4379-2025-1-27-35

12. Melikova J.N., Chechneva A.V., Vilmis D.A., Malyukova U.A. The effectiveness of “Firocoxib” in the complex palliative treatment of soft tissue sarcomas in dogs. Agrarian science. 2025; (7): 14‒22 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2025-396-07-14-22

13. Reid J., Nolan A.M., Hughes J.M.L., Lascelles D., Pawson P., Scott E.M. Development of the short-form Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF) and derivation of an analgesic intervention score. Animal Welfare. 2007; 16(S1): 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860003178X

14. Holton L., Pawson P., Nolan A., Reid J., Scott E.M. Development of a behaviour-based scale to measure acute pain in dogs. Veterinary Record. 2001; 148(17): 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.148.17.525

15. Testa B., Reid J., Scott M.E., Murison P.J., Bell A.M. The Short Form of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale in Post-operative Analgesia Studies in Dogs: A Scoping Review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021; 8: 751949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.751949

16. Marco-Martorell M., Duffy N., Martinez M., Maddox T., Robson K. Agreement of Pain Assessment Using the Short Form of the Canine Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale between Veterinary Students, Veterinary Nurses, Veterinary Surgeons, and ECVAA-Diplomates. Animals. 2024; 14(16): 2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14162310

17. Steagall P.V.M., Mantovani F.B., Ferreira T.H., Salcedo E.S., Moutinho F.Q., Luna S.P.L. Evaluation of the adverse effects of oral firocoxib in healthy dogs. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2007; 30(3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00842.x

18. Davila D., Keeshen T.P., Evans R.B., Conzemius M.G. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of perioperative firocoxib and tramadol administration in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2013; 243(2): 225–231. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.2.225

19. Leece E.A., Brearley J.C., Harding E.F. Comparison of carprofen and meloxicam for 72 hours following ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2005; 32(4): 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2005.00207.x

20. Osada H. et al. Toceranib phosphate and firocoxib-mediated partial response in a dog with advanced intranasal sarcoma. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2023; 85(9): 1004–1009. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.22-0542