Prophylaxis versus pre-emptive treatment for infective and inflammatory complications of surgical third molar removal: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial with sustained release amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1000/62.5 mg)

Risk factors for post-extraction infection of mandibular third molar: A retrospective clinical study

Post-extraction infection is one of the most concerning complications of mandibular third molar extraction, which is the most common procedure in oral and maxillofacial surgery. We investigated risk factors for post-extraction infection by retrospectively analyzing 2,513 teeth/cases of mandibular third molar extraction (1,040 males, 1,473 females) performed at a single medical facility in Kobe, Japan from January 2014 to May 2022. The predictive variables were categorized as patient attributes, health status, and anatomic, pathological, and operative variables that may be associated with post-extraction infection. The outcome variable was the post-extraction infection rate. The post-extraction infection rate was 5.73 % (144 of the 2,513 teeth), and the mean age of the patients with a post-extraction infection was 41.76 ± 16.8 years. Our analyses also revealed that the postoperative infection rate was significantly increased in patients aged ≥36 years. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the following variables were significantly associated with post-extraction infection: preoperative antibiotic administration (odds ratio [OR] 4.68, p < 0.001), postoperative paresthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve (OR 4.34, p < 0.001), intraoperative hemostatic procedure (OR 1. 74, p = 0.008), position of Pell and Gregory classifications (OR 1. 70, p < 0.001), Winter's classification (OR 1.28, p < 0.03), and age (OR 1.03, p < 0.001). Oral and maxillofacial surgeons should be aware of these risk factors.

Indications for Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Dentoalveolar Procedures

Antibiotic prophylaxis is the use of antibiotics perioperatively to prevent infections at the surgical site or distant locations. The decision to provide prophylaxis must balance risks of antibiotic resistance, adverse drug reactions, and increased health care costs with the benefit of decreasing infection. This determination has been studied extensively in patients with specific cardiac conditions and prosthetic joints. Prophylactic antibiotics in healthy patients have been shown to reduce the frequency of alveolar osteitis and decrease the failure rates of dental implants.

Comparative efficacy of pre-operative and post-operative administration of amoxicillin in third molar extraction surgery - A systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the effectiveness of pre-operative and post-operative administration of amoxicillin in patients undergoing third molar extraction surgery. A systematic search was executed according to PRISMA guidelines for studies published till December 2021. Studies were included based on the pre-eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The heterogeneity was evaluated, and a random effect model was used for meta-analysis. A total of five studies were included from an initial search of 96 studies. The included studies were randomized controlled trials and comparative studies assessing pre-operative and post-operative administration of antibiotics among patients undergoing third molar extraction surgery. For comparison between pre-operative and post-operative groups, interincisal distance, complications, pain, and swelling were systematically reviewed and meta-analysis was done for interincisal distance and complications. The mean change in interincisal distance ranged from 5.5 to 47.9 and from 4.56 to 46.1 in the pre-operative and post-operative amoxicillin groups, respectively. Complications reported were infections, alveolar osteitis, nausea, diarrhea, gastric pain, rash, and headache with a pooled incidence of 4.3-33% in the pre-operative amoxicillin group and 0-22.7% in the post-operative amoxicillin group. Quantitative synthesis of data carried out from meta-analysis shows a significant difference in the pre-operative and post-operative amoxicillin groups in improving the interincisal distance and incidence of complications post surgery. The qualitative synthesis of data derived from systematic review for pain provides favoring results for post-operative amoxicillin administration. In case of swelling, a non-conclusive result was obtained.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of dry socket and surgical site infection after lower third molar extraction: a network meta-analysis

Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.

Evaluation of the efficacy of topical rifamycin application on postoperative complications after lower impacted wisdom teeth surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a single-dose topical rifamycin application on postoperative complications after impacted lower third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, controlled clinical study consisted of individuals with bilaterally impacted lower third molars that would be extracted for orthodontic reasons. The extraction sockets were irrigated with 3 ml/250 mg of rifamycin solution in Group 1, while in Group 2 (control group) the extraction sockets were irrigated with 20 ml of physiological saline. Pain intensity was measured daily for 7 days by using visual analog scale. Trismus and edema were evaluated preoperatively and on the postoperative days 2 and 7 by calculating the proportional changes in maximum mouth opening and mean distance between reference points of the face, respectively. Paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test and Chi-square test were used to analyze the study variables.

RESULTS

35 patients (19 female, 16 male) were included in the study. The mean age of all participants was 22.19±4.98. Alveolitis was observed in 8 patients, (6 in the control group, 2 in the rifamycin group). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of trismus and swelling measurements on the 2nd and 7th postoperative days (p>0.05). VAS scores were significantly low in rifamycin group on postoperative days 1 and 4 (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of the present study, topical rifamycin application reduced the incidence of alveolitis, prevented infection, and provided analgesic effect after surgical removal of impacted third molars.

The Role of Antibiotic Use in Third Molar Tooth Extractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Anecdotal evidence suggested variation in practices for antibiotic prescribing around dental procedures including route of administration of antibiotics, timing of the course prescribed (before, after or both), length of course prescribed, narrow vs. broad spectrum agents prescribed, use of single or combination of antibiotics, and the use of loading doses. This review aims to investigate this disparity of practices and the absence of global and local recent consensus on the most appropriate antibiotic interventions around invasive dental procedures. Material and methods: Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed, reviewed, and entered on the PROSPERO© website prior to commencement. Ethics approval was gained from the University of Wolverhampton Committee. Searches were performed using PubMed©, Science Direct™, and the Cochrane Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. They investigated studies examining the efficacy and safety of any antibiotic regimen tested, independent of regimen used, versus a placebo, control, or no therapy, on outcomes in post third molar extraction. Results: The primary outcome of interest was postoperative infection and secondary outcomes were other post-surgical related complications of infectious nature and antibiotic adverse events. Sixteen RCTs were identified that met the selection criteria. Antibiotic use was reported to be safe, causing few adverse events. Meta-analysis of infection events showed antibiotics reduced the risk of an infection by 69%, but routine use for prophylaxis in uncomplicated procedures was not supported, and their role in patients with comorbidities or impaired immunity remains controversial. The effect on the incidence of dry socket showed no difference based upon regimen used. No significant benefit was found with respect to reduction of intraoral inflammation, wound dehiscence, haematoma, and lymphadenopathy. Conclusion: The effect on postoperative pain reduction was inconclusive. Routine use of antibiotics around M3 extraction procedures is not supported, but their use in the presence of co-morbidities and or immunosuppression remains controversial to be confirmed by future studies.

Comparative Efficacy of Different Oral Doses of Clindamycin in Preventing Post-Operative Sequelae of Lower Third Molar Surgery—A Randomized, Triple-Blind Study

Background and Objectives. Antibiotic regimen optimization is a major concern in post extraction sequelae management following third molar surgery, mostly owing to the absence of universal guidelines. Hence, this study aimed to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis using three different doses of clindamycin on the prevention of infection and other complications following mandibular third molar disimpaction. The secondary outcome was testing whether clindamycin exhibits activity in acute or chronic models of pain using the visual analog scale of pain and the necessity for post-operative rescue analgesia. The tertiary outcome was to assess clindamycin penetration into the saliva by measuring its concentration using liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Materials and Methods. A randomized, two-center, triple-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted, in which the patients were randomly allocated to three groups: I, receiving 150 mg clindamycin every 8 h; II, receiving 300 mg clindamycin every 8 h; and III, receiving 600 mg clindamycin every 12 h. Each group continued the therapy for five days. Results. An overall decrease in the risk of infection and other post-operative complications, such as trismus, edema, dysphagia, and lymphadenopathy, was achieved, with the best results in group I. Conclusion. As no statistical association was observed between clindamycin concentration in saliva and degree of post-operative inflammation, clindamycin concentration, or pain intensity, smaller doses of clindamycin administered over shorter time periods is recommended.

Do antibiotics prevent infection after third molar surgery? A network meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether antibiotics, compared to placebo, can prevent infection or dry socket after third molar surgery. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed following registration of the protocol (CRD42021276266). Four databases and the grey literature were searched, and papers were selected based on the PICOS question. RoB 2 and GRADE were used to evaluate the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, respectively. The NMA was performed using Stata. Of 58 randomized clinical trials identified, 34 were included in the NMA. Patients treated with amoxicillin (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.84; low quality of evidence) and those treated with metronidazole (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.84; low quality of evidence) showed a lower risk of infection and dry socket when compared to patients given a placebo. Postoperative amoxicillin (750 mg) and amoxicillin plus clavulanate (500 mg + 125 mg, or 2000 mg + 125 mg), and preoperative metronidazole (800 mg) are useful to prevent infection or dry socket when compared to placebo. The low rate of infection after third molar surgery, the correct concept of antibiotic prophylaxis, and antibiotic resistance must be taken into account when choosing to treat healthy patients undergoing third molar surgery with antibiotics.

A comparative analysis of the efficacy of moxifloxacin and cefixime in the reduction of postoperative inflammatory sequelae after mandibular third molar surgery

Background/Aim. There is no scientific evidence that the prophylactic use of antibiotics as a part of the mandibular third molar surgery is effective in suppressing postoperative pain, edema, trismus, and dry socket. The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of antibiotics from the fluoroquinolone (moxifloxacin) and cephalosporin (cefixime) groups in reducing postoperative inflammatory sequelae (pain, edema, and trismus), as well as in possibly reducing the incidence of dry socket after mandibular third molar surgery. Methods. This double-blind study was completed by 157 subjects, comprising two study groups (who received the aforementioned antibiotics) and a control group, who received placebo tablets. Subjects were assessed on the first, second, and seventh day following surgery. In the postoperative course, patients were monitored for the occurrence, intensity, and duration of postoperative inflammatory sequelae and dry socket. Results. Both antibiotics, especially moxifloxacin, had a pronounced effect on reducing all inflammatory sequelae (pain, edema, and trismus) as the most common postoperative complaints following mandibular third molar surgery, and also contributed to reducing the incidence of dry socket. Conclusion. Antibiotic prophylaxis with cefixime and, especially moxifloxacin, reduced the occurrence of postoperative inflammatory sequelae and alleviated discomfort. It is interesting, that both antibiotics, especially moxifloxacin, also contributed to reducing the incidence of postoperative dry socket, which is not provoked by inflammation. Therefore, further research into the underlying mechanisms behind such an effect is warranted.

Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design

INTRODUCTION

Since antimicrobial resistance, caused by various factors including antibiotic overuse and abuse, is a severe challenge, the necessity of perioperative antibiotic prophylactic for surgical third molar removal remains a contentious topic. This study determined whether perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), swelling, and pain in the case of surgical removal of wisdom teeth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design. A study medication of 2 g amoxicillin, administered 1 h before the third molar removal, followed by 1.5 g each for the first 3 postoperative days, was compared with placebo medication. The primary outcome variable (SSI), secondary clinical parameters (swelling and trismus), and patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, pain, and pain medication intake) were documented until postoperative day 7. Statistical analyses were done with a paired t test, t test for independent samples, Chi-square test, and McNemar test, including effect sizes.

RESULTS

Primary outcome SSI, in total 11%, and clinical parameters swelling and trismus were not significantly different between the two groups. The patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, and pain) did not significantly differ, except for postoperative bleeding in the EG on day 0. No significant result was found with pain medication intake postoperative on days 0-7.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative administration of oral antibiotics neither revealed additional benefits in patient-related outcome measures nor reduced postoperative complications compared with the placebo group indicated at routine surgical removal of noninflamed wisdom teeth.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Taking antimicrobial resistance into account, clear recommendations for administering drugs, particularly antibiotics, are critical in oral surgery.

Antibiotics in Dentoalveolar Surgery, a Closer Look at Infection, Alveolar Osteitis and Adverse Drug Reaction

PURPOSE

To execute an evidence-based review answering the following questions: "What antibiotic type and mode of delivery are most effective at reducing inflammatory complications in third molar and dental implant surgery? What are the types and rates of antibiotic-related adverse reactions in the context of third molar surgery, infective endocarditis, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) and osteoradionecrosis (ORN)?"

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed studies using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus/Elsevier, Google Scholar, and Wiley online library databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were reviewed for third molar surgery. Although there is some evidence that systemic antibiotics reduce inflammatory complications (infection and alveolar osteitis), routine use is not recommended for third molar surgery. For at-risk cases, a single preoperative dose of amoxicillin is preferred. Clindamycin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and erythromycin have a high adverse risk profile. Eight studies were reviewed for dental implant surgery. Antibiotics with dental implant placement showed little reduction in post surgery infection and minimal improvement in long-term success. A comprehensive search found limited data on antibiotic-related adverse effects in the context of infective endocarditis, MRONJ and ORN.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of clinical recommendations are presented to better guide evidence-based and standardized antibiotic usage on the basis of the literature discussed in this review. This review highlights the need for further research focusing on antibiotic type and timing of delivery with adverse drug reaction as a primary outcome measure when assessing treatment outcomes and complications in dentoalveolar surgery. This will better elucidate the risks vs benefits of antibiotic in dentoalveolar surgery.

Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infectious complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery. A randomized controlled trial

Background

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing postoperative infections after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.

Material and Methods

A Parallel-group, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed. 154 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups; experimental (n=77) receiving 2g amoxicillin 1 hour prior to surgery and control (n=77) receiving placebo. Primary outcome was postoperative infections and secondary outcome was the need for rescue analgesia.

Results

4.5% of patients developed postoperative infections, five patients of the control group (4 alveolar osteitis, 1 surgical site infection) and two of the experimental group (1 alveolar osteitis, 1 surgical site infection). Difference between groups was not statistically significant, RR=0.4 (95%CI 0.08-1.99, 𝘱=0.41) NNTB=26. Rescue analgesia intake was significantly higher in the control group (41 vs 18 patients of experimental group) RR=0.49 (95%CI 0.32-0.75, 𝘱<0.05) NNTB=3.

Conclusions

The use of 2g amoxicillin 1 hour before surgery was not effective in significantly reducing the risk of postoperative infections from impacted mandibular third molars extraction, when compared to placebo. Nevertheless, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a reduced need for rescue analgesia.

Key words:Antibiotic prophylaxis, third molar, tooth extraction, impacted tooth, dry socket, surgical wound infection, oral surgery.

Firmicutes Dysbiosis After Chlorhexidine Prophylaxis in Healthy Patients Submitted to Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction

Prophylaxis with antiseptic and antibiotic therapy is common in impacted lower third molar surgeries, despite the lack of consensus among professionals and researchers in the indication for healthy patients. The aim of the present preliminary study was to verify the impact of prophylaxis therapy with antiseptic and antibiotic in healthy patients submitted to impacted lower third molar extraction, according to oral microorganism quantification. Eleven patients submitted to impacted lower third molar extraction, under prophylactic therapy with 0.12% chlorhexidine and amoxicillin in four experimental phases, were evaluated. Our results showed no significant reduction in total bacteria load, as well as in Bacteroidetes and C. albicans loads in the oral cavity, after prophylactic therapy with antiseptic and antibiotic. On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the Firmicutes levels across the follow-up, and this effect seems to be large (ηp²=0.94). Post-hoc test demonstrated that the levels of Firmicutes in T1 were higher than T0, T2, and T3, suggesting a microbiota dysbiosis, when 0.12% chlorhexidine use, which may be responsible for selection of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Our results alert for an overuse of antiseptic and antibiotics by dentists and for a better evaluation of the available protocols.

Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions

BACKGROUND

The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear.  Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence).  We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.

Comparison between the prophylactic effects of amoxicillin 24 and 48 hours pre-operatively on surgical site infections in Japanese patients with impacted mandibular third molars: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

According to the guidelines, the dosage for mandibular wisdom tooth extraction (MWTE) varies within the administration period. There is a 24-fold difference between the minimum and maximum doses. If an appropriate antimicrobial can be administered without increasing incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), it may lead to a global action plan on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Therefore, we prospectively surveyed incidence of SSI post-operatively and use of oral antibiotics (OA) for MWTE.

METHODS

Subjects were patients who underwent MWTE in our dental outpatient clinic from May 2019 to April 2020. Two groups were formed depending on type of administration period they received: 24 h and 48 h after surgery. The following information was collected: (1) patient factors (age, gender, body mass index, presence/absence of preoperative medication, diagnosis, impacted wisdom tooth status; (2) surgical factors (operative time, presence/absence of closure, presence/absence of hemostat, doctor career, type and frequency of painkiller); (3) relationship between administration period of OA and SSI occurrence; and (4) details of SSI.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty subjects were analyzed, all of which used amoxicillin. There were 106 cases in 24 h group and 234 cases in 48 h group. The total incidence of SSI was 1.1% (4/340 cases), with 0.9% (1/106 cases) in 24 h group and 1.3% (3/234 cases) in 48 h group; there was no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that amoxicillin (250 mg/dose every 8 h x 3 doses beginning 1 h before surgery) might be sufficient in preventing SSI in Japanese dental patients without SSI risk factors.

Do perioperative antibiotics reduce complications of mandibular third molar removal? A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens versus placebo in relation to possible postoperative complications derived from the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.

STUDY DESIGN

The final study sample of this double-blind randomized controlled trial comprised 92 Caucasian volunteers. Patients were assigned to 3 groups by using a randomization table. Group 1 (n = 30) received 750 mg oral amoxicillin both before and after the surgery; group 2 (n = 32) received the same oral dose after surgery alone; and group 3 (n = 30) received placebo both before and after surgery. Infectious complications, postoperative pain, and inflammation intensity were measured. The requirement for and the timing of rescue medication were also measured.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain and inflammation intensity were significantly higher (P < .05) in group 3 than in groups 1 or 2 at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 1 week. A significantly higher proportion of group 3 required rescue medication (analgesics and rescue antibiotics) (P = .013) compared with groups 1 or 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater pain and inflammation were experienced by patients receiving placebo before lower third molar extraction than by those receiving antibiotics either before surgery or both before and after surgery. Other options, such as use of local antibiotics, should be considered to reduce the problems, including bacterial resistance, caused by overuse of systemic antibiotics.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review

Surgical site infections are a complication of oral and maxillofacial procedures, with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. Use of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections must be balanced with considerations of a patients' risk of antibiotic-related adverse events. This review aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis. Searches were conducted using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PUBMED for maxillofacial procedures including: treatment of dental abscesses, extractions, implants, trauma, temporomandibular joints, orthognathics, malignant and benign tumour removal, and bone grafting, limited to articles published since 2000. A total of 98 out of 280 retrieved papers were included in the final analysis. Systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR criteria. Randomised controlled trials were assessed for bias using Cochrane Collaborative tools. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Prophylactic antibiotic use is recommended in surgical extractions of third molars, comminuted mandibular fractures, temporomandibular joint replacements, clean-contaminated tumour removal, and complex implants. Prophylactic antibiotic use is not routinely recommended in fractures of the upper or midface facial thirds. Further research is required to provide recommendations in orthognathic, cleft lip, palate, temporomandibular joint surgery, and maxillofacial surgical procedures in medically-compromised patients.

Alveolar Iodine Tampon Packing Reduces Postoperative Morbidity After Third Molar Surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of an iodine tampon after mandibular third molar surgery on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), use of painkillers, postoperative sequelae, and self-care behaviors in the first postoperative week.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, crossover, randomized controlled study included patients undergoing surgical removal of bilateral symmetrically, horizontally impacted mandibular third molars. The surgical site was randomly allocated to receive an iodine tampon after surgery or wound closure and rinsing with a Monoject syringe (Tyco/Healthcare-Kendall, Mansfield, MA). The primary outcomes measured each day during the first postoperative week were the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 score and postoperative sequelae, including pain, swelling, limited mouth opening, postoperative infection, and alveolar osteitis. The secondary outcome measures were several self-care behaviors. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired-samples t tests.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients (25 men and 29 women; mean age, 25.1 years) were enrolled, with a total of 108 surgically removed impacted mandibular third molars. The use of an iodine tampon resulted in a significantly lower impact on OHRQoL (mean of 21.5 [standard deviation (SD), 9.6] vs 26.5 [SD, 10.6]) on the first postoperative day, which was observable until the seventh postoperative day. In addition, after removal of the impacted third molar, patients with the iodine tampon condition reported less pain (mean of 5.2 [SD, 1.9] vs 6.1 [SD, 2.1] on day 1, lasting throughout the week), less use of painkillers, less limited mouth opening, fewer problems chewing, less swelling, and earlier recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of postoperative iodine packing after the removal of impacted mandibular third molars significantly reduces OHRQoL and postoperative sequelae.

Necessity of Antibiotics to Reduce Inflammatory Complications after Third Molar Extractions: A Prospective Study

Aims and Objectives:

To determine the relationship between the usage of antibiotics postoperatively and inflammatory complications following third molar extractions.

Materials and Methods:

The sample was derived from Saudi Arabia private practitioners who were oral surgeons and was randomly categorized into two groups: group A, who took postoperative antibiotics, and group B, who have not taken antibiotics. The observed primary variable was the occurrence of inflammatory complications subsequent to removal of third molar.

Results:

The data were obtained from 35 oral surgeons, who gave details about 725 patients in whom 965 third molars were removed. A total of 455 (62.75%) patients have taken antibiotics postoperatively. The mean age was 28 ± 14.8 years. We noticed a very high male preponderance of 543 (74.89%). Mean body mass index was 26.7 ± 6.3 kg/m². The mean Preoperative Disease Severity Score and Operative Difficulty Score was 2.13 ± 2.1 and 12.1 ± 6.3, respectively.

Conclusion:

Fewer postoperative inflammatory complications were observed in subjects who have taken antibiotics after third molar removal.

What are the risk factors for postoperative infections of third molar extraction surgery: A retrospective clinical study?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify (1) the predilection site of postoperative infection after third molar extraction surgery, (2) risk factors associated with postoperative infection, and (3) the cause of the difference between delayed- and early-onset infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 1010 patients (396 male, 614 female) who had ≥1 third molars extracted (2407; 812 maxilla, 1595 mandible). The risk factors were classified as attributes, general health, anatomic, and operative. Outcome variables were delayed- and early-onset infections.

RESULTS

Postoperative infection was completely absent in the maxilla, and all infections occurred in the mandible, with a probability of 1.94% (31/1595). Bivariate analysis for postoperative infection showed depth of inclusion and intraoperative hemostatic treatment to be significantly associated with the development of infections. Bivariate analysis for delayed- and early-onset infections showed simultaneous extraction of the left and right mandibular third molars to be prominent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative infection occurs mainly in the mandible, and that in the maxilla is very rare. The risk of postoperative infection in the mandible was found to be related to the depth of inclusion and intraoperative hemostatic treatment. Simultaneous extraction of the left and right mandibular third molars appear to increase the risk of delayed-onset postoperative infection.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Dental Implants and Extraction Procedures

Background and objectives: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results: Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising n = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure (p = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications (p = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. Conclusions: There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.

Does the use of amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in third molar surgery reduce the risk of postoperative infection? A systematic review with meta-analysis

The objectives of this systematic review were to investigate the efficacy of amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for reducing the risk of postoperative infection after third molar surgery and to evaluate the adverse outcomes in these patients, as well as in healthy volunteers. A systematic search of four databases was performed on May 26, 2017. Eleven studies qualified for the qualitative analysis and eight were found suitable for meta-analysis. The results suggest that both amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and amoxicillin significantly reduce the risk of infection after third molar extraction (overall relative risk (RR) 0.25, P<0.001). However, with the exclusion of randomized controlled trials with a split-mouth design (due to an inadequate crossover period after antibiotic treatment), only amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was found to be effective (RR 0.21, P<0.001). The risk of adverse effects was significantly higher in the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group (RR=4.12, P=0.023) than in the amoxicillin group (RR 1.57, P=0.405). In conclusion, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and amoxicillin may significantly reduce the risk of infection after third molar extraction. However, their use in third molar surgery should be viewed with caution, as recent clinical trials on healthy volunteers have shown evidence of the negative impact of amoxicillin use on bacterial diversity and antibiotic resistance.

Comparison of the efficacy of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with metronidazole to azithromycin with metronidazole after surgical removal of impacted lower third molar to prevent infection

Objectives

The goal of the study was to investigate the clinical effects of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (500+125 mg) with metronidazole 400 mg administered three times daily (Group I) versus azithromycin 500 mg administered once daily and with metronidazole 400 mg three times daily (Group II) for the prevention of postoperative infection following mandibular third molar surgical removal.

Materials and Methods

The study design was a single-center prospective study. Patients who reported to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery between February 2015 and January 2017 for removal of mandibular third molar were screened, and 108 patients were chosen. One surgeon carried out all procedures. Patients were prescribed antibiotics until the two groups contained a similar number of cases.

Results

Our data showed that Group II had fewer incidences of surgical site infection, but with no statistical significance.

Conclusion

Although both treatments are used routinely after removal of the mandibular third molar, neither is significantly better than the other.

Do Postoperative Antibiotics Decrease the Frequency of Inflammatory Complications Following Third Molar Removal?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical question: among patients who have their third molars (M3s) removed, do those who receive only postoperative antibiotics compared with those who receive no perioperative antibiotics have a lower frequency of postoperative inflammatory complications?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors designed and implemented a prospective cohort study and enrolled a sample of patients who had at least 1 M3 removed in an ambulatory private practice setting from June 2011 through May 2012 by oral and maxillofacial surgeons participating in a practice-based research collaborative. The predictor variable was postoperative antibiotic use categorized as postoperative antibiotics alone or no antibiotics. The primary outcome variable was the presence or absence of an inflammatory complication (ie, alveolar osteitis or surgical site infection) after M3 removal. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple logistic regression statistics (adjusted for clustering within surgical practices) were computed to measure the association between postoperative antibiotic use alone and inflammatory complications after M3 removal, with statistical significance set at a P value less than or equal to .05.

RESULTS

The study sample was composed of 1,877 patients having 5,631 M3s removed, of which 61% received postoperative antibiotics only. The overall inflammatory complication frequencies in the groups receiving postoperative antibiotic only and no antibiotic were 4.3 and 7.5%, respectively (P = .003). After adjusting for differences between the 2 study groups and clustering of patients within surgical practices, postoperative antibiotic use was associated with a 40% decreased risk of developing postoperative inflammatory complications (P = .04) with marginal statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that postoperative antibiotic therapy is associated with a statistically meaningful decreased risk of inflammatory complications after M3 removal compared with no antibiotic therapy.

The effects of amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid on the postoperative complaints after third molar surgery: a retrospective chart analysis

Purpose:

The aim of this chart-based retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of orally administered amoxicillin alone or amoxicillin combined with clavulanic acid on the frequency of post-operative complications and patients’ comfort after mandibular third molar surgery.

Materials and Methods:

The records of patients who had undergone lower third molar surgery between October 2014 and December 2015 were examined. A total of 62 patients who had fully impacted teeth in mesioangular position and who had been prescribed same type and dose of anti-inflammatory drug were included in this study. Among them, 32 subjects were found to have been prescribed 500 mg amoxicillin trihydrate orally every 8 h for 5 days (Group A) and 30 patients 500 mg amoxicillin trihydrate plus 125 mg potassium clavulanate orally every 8 h for 5 days postoperatively (Group AC). Post-operative pain levels, swelling, presence of trismus, frequency of alveolar osteitis and quality of life (QoL) scores were gathered from patients’ charts and were statistically compared.

Results:

Analysis of the variables showed that there were no significant differences between the Groups A and AC regarding pain levels, swelling, trismus and QoL scores. The frequency of alveolar osteitis was found to be 1.6% in the Group A, however, no significant difference was observed among study groups.

Conclusion:

Within the limitations of this retrospective chart review, it can be stated that amoxicillin and amoxicillin with clavulanic acid might provide similar outcome in terms of patient comfort following third molar surgery.

Does the postoperative administration of antibiotics reduce the symptoms of lower third molar removal? A randomized double blind clinical study

Background

To date there is little scientific evidence that clarifies the therapeutic effect of antibiotics for managing the postoperative symptoms of impacted third molar surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic treatment for reducing non-infectious clinical symptoms.

Material and Methods

Patient data was collected from the patients´ medical records and the results were statistically evaluated with SPSS versión 21.0; SPSS, IBM; Chicago, IL, USA). This longitudinal prospective study consisted of a randomized simple-blind clinical assay of 293 patients attending the Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). The predictive variable evaluated was the effect of antibiotic treatment on non-infectious symptoms after third molar extraction. The variables evaluated were pain, swelling, and oral aperture.

Results

The 293 patients were divided into 2 groups: a control group of 147 patients treated with analgesics and anti-inflammatories after surgery and a study group of 146 patients, who were also administered antibiotics. Better outcomes were observed in the study group treated with antibiotics. Pain, swelling and oral aperture variables presented better results in the antibiotic group with statistically significant difference.

Conclusions

The results suggest that antibiotic administration decreases the post-operative non-infectious clinical symptoms of impacted third molar surgery. However, the prolonged administration of antibiotics had no real medical indications to justify their use and can cause serious health problems in the long term.

Key words:Antibiotic, post-operative, impacted lower third molar.

Infection, Alveolar Osteitis, and Adverse Effects Using Metronidazole in Healthy Patients Undergoing Third Molar Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the risk of surgical infection, alveolar osteitis, and adverse effects using systemic metronidazole in comparison with placebo in healthy patients undergoing third molar surgery.

Materials and Methods

The eligible reports were identified from diverse science sources. Clinical trials meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and an acceptable Oxford Quality Score were included in this study. The evaluation of risk was done using the Risk Reduction Calculator and Review Manager 5.3., from the Cochrane Library. A significant risk reduction was assumed when the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals was <1 and the lower limit did not cross zero (negative number) alongside a p value of <0.05 for the overall test. Data of 667 patients from five clinical trials were used for the assessment of risk.

Results

Our analysis showed no reduction of the risk of infection or dry socket in patients receiving metronidazole compared to whom took placebo. Meanwhile, the adverse effects did not exhibit a difference between the studied groups.

Conclusion

The routine use of systemic metronidazole to prevent surgical site infection and/or dry socket in healthy patients undergoing third molar surgery is not recommended.

Effect of submucosal or oral administration of prednisolone on postoperative sequelae following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar: A randomized controlled study

Background:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of preoperatively administered submucosal and oral prednisolone on postoperative pain, facial swelling, and trismus following third molar surgery.

Patients and Methods:

This was a randomized controlled trial in which subjects were randomly distributed into three groups. Group A consisted of subjects who received 40 mg oral prednisolone; Group B consisted of subjects who received 40 mg submucosal injection of prednisolone while Group C consisted of subjects who did not receive prednisolone. Each group had 62 subjects. Measurements for facial width/facial swelling, pain, and mouth opening were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. The postoperative evaluation points were postoperative days 1, 3, and 7. These measurements were compared with the preoperative values both within and among the groups.

Results:

Most of the subjects were in their third decade of life. A considerable increase in the mean postoperative values for pain, facial width and trismus was observed. Notably, subjects who did not receive prednisolone showed comparatively higher values for the measured parameters throughout the postoperative evaluation period. Subjects who received submucosal injection of prednisolone showed overall lower values compared to those who received oral prednisolone.

Conclusion:

The results of this study indicate that the administration of prednisolone has a significantly beneficial effect in ameliorating the postoperative sequelae of the third molar surgery. In addition, the effect of submucosally injected prednisolone is comparable to the orally administered prednisolone; indeed it shows superiority to the latter in a number of dimensions. Submucosal injection of prednisolone offers a simple, effective, easy, safe, and minimally invasive option to existing therapeutic methods of reducing these postoperative sequelae.

Efficacy of amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the prevention of infection and dry socket after third molar extraction. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Prophylactic use of amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, although controversial, is common in routine clinical practice in third molar surgery.

Material and Methods

Our objective was to assess the efficacy of prophylactic amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid in reducing the incidence of dry socket and/or infection after third molar extraction. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis consulting electronic databases and references in retrieved articles. We included double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials published up to June 2015 investigating the efficacy of amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid on the incidence of the aforementioned conditions after third molar extraction. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated with a generic inverse-variance approach and a random effect model using Stata/IC 13 and Review Manager Version 5.2. Stratified analysis was performed by antibiotic type.

Results

We included 10 papers in the qualitative review and in the quantitative synthesis (1997 extractions: 1072 in experimental groups and 925 in controls, with 27 and 74 events of dry socket and/or infection, respectively). The overall RR was 0.350 (p< 0.001; 95% CI 0.214 to 0.574). We found no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=0%, p=0.470). The number needed to treat was 18 (95% CI 13 to 29). Five studies reported adverse reactions (RR=1.188, 95% CI 0.658 to 2.146, p =0.567). The RRs were 0.563 for amoxicillin (95% CI 0.295 to 1.08, p=0.082) and 0.215 for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (95% CI 0.117 to 0.395, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Prophylactic use of amoxicillin does not significantly reduce the risk of infection and/or dry socket after third molar extraction. With amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, the risk decreases significantly. Nevertheless, considering the number needed to treat, low prevalence of infection, potential adverse reactions to antibiotics and lack of serious complications in placebo groups, the routine prescription of amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid is not justified.

Key words:Meta-analysis, amoxicillin, infection, removal, dry socket, third molar.

Do systemic antibiotics prevent dry socket and infection after third molar extraction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The use of antibiotics to prevent dry socket and infection is a controversial but widespread practice. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of systemic antibiotics in reducing the frequencies of these complications after extraction.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the PRISMA statement, based on randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating systemic antibiotics to prevent dry socket and infection after third molar surgery. Databases were searched up to June 2015. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated with inverse variance-weighted, fixed-effect, or random-effect models.

RESULTS

We included 22 papers in the qualitative and 21 in the quantitative review (3304 extractions). Overall-RR was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.56; P < .0001); number needed to treat, 14 (95% CI 11-19). Penicillins-RR: 0.40 (95% CI 0.27-0.59). Nitroimidazoles-RR: 0.56 (95% CI 0.38-0.82). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic antibiotics significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and infection in third molar extraction.

Comparative Efficacy of Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid and Levofloxacin in the Reduction of Postsurgical Sequelae After Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Clinical Trial in a Nigerian University Teaching Hospital

Background:

The most common sequelae after surgical removal of mandibular third molar are pain, trismus, swelling, and dysphagia. However, these symptoms can also signal the onset of surgical site infection and alveoli osteitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and levofloxacin and preemptive therapy of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the reduction of postinflammatory complications, surgical site infection, and alveolar osteitis following the third molar surgery.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 135 patients were randomized into three equal groups: Group A (preemptive therapy of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) with preoperative dose of 875/125 mg amoxicillin/clavulanic acid followed by 500/125 mg amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 12 hourly for 5 days, Group B (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid prophylaxis) with a single preoperative dose of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 875/125 mg tablets, and Group C (levofloxacin prophylaxis) with a single preoperative dose of levofloxacin 1000 mg tablets. All patients had ostectomy using surgical handpiece and burs and received same analgesics (tabs ibuprofen 400 mg 8 hourly for 3 days).

Results:

No case of surgical site infection or alveoli osteitis was recorded in the study groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to pain, mouth opening, postoperative facial dimension, and body temperature.

Conclusion:

Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as a single preoperative bolus should be adequate for the prevention of postoperative wound infection and alveoli osteitis following the third molar extraction as there is no need for an extension of the antibiotic. Moreover, levofloxacin can be utilized as prophylaxis in patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction if such patients are allergic to penicillins.

Risk of wound infection and safety profile of amoxicillin in healthy patients which required third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the risk of surgical wound infection and the adverse effects of amoxicillin in healthy patients who required excision of third molars. We identified eligible reports from searches of PubMed, Medline®, the Cochrane Library, Imbiomed, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Studies that met our minimum requirements were evaluated using inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Oxford Quality Scale. Those with a score of 3 or more on this Scale were included and their data were extracted and analysed. For evaluation of the risk of infection the absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, and 95% CI were calculated. For evaluation of the risk of an adverse effect the absolute risk increase, number needed to harm, and 95% CI were calculated using the Risk Reduction Calculator. Each meta-analysis was made with the help of the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model, and estimates of risk (OR) and 95% CI were calculated using the Review Manager 5.3, from the Cochrane Library. A significant risk was assumed when the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than 1. Probabilities of less than 0.05 were accepted as significant. The results showed that there was no reduction in the risk of infection when amoxicillin was given before or after operation compared with an untreated group or placebo. In conclusion, this study suggests that amoxicillin given prophylactically or postoperatively does not reduce the risk of infection in healthy patients having their third molars extracted.

Antibiotic therapy in fully impacted lower third molar surgery: randomized three-arm, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three drug protocols in patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars.

METHODS

Eighty surgeries were performed on healthy patients using three randomized double-blind drug protocols: group 1 (G1), amoxicillin (1 g) 1 h before surgery + 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days; group 2 (G2), 1-g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery plus placebo, with identical appearance to G1, 8/8 h for 7 days; and group 3 (G3), placebo 1 h before surgery and 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days. The primary outcome criterion was mouth opening, and the secondary outcome criteria were facial edema and pain. Signals as body temperature, lymphadenopathy, and dysphagia characterize the sample. Evaluation was performed at baseline and on the 4th and 7th postoperative days by the same researcher.

RESULTS

There was no difference among groups with respect to any of the parameters evaluated (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under these experimental conditions, there is no advantage in the administration of antibiotics in healthy patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars with a controlled aseptic chain.

Antibiotics in third molar extraction; are they really necessary: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic resistance is now a serious problem, although it was not so only a few years ago. The need of the hour is to give clear evidence of the efficacy of antibiotic use, or lack thereof, to the surgeon for a procedure as common as mandibular third molar surgery.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate whether postoperative combined amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in mandibular third molar extraction is effective in preventing inflammatory complications.

STUDY AND DESIGN

The study was structured as a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A study was designed wherein the 96 units (two bilaterally similar impacted mandibular third molars per head in 48 patients) were randomly assigned to two treatment groups (Group I and Group II). Each patient served as his/her own control. Each patient received 625 mg of combined amoxicillin and clavulanic acid 1 h before surgery. In the case of third molars belonging to Group I, 625 mg of combined amoxicillin and clavulanic acid TDS was continued for 3 days; in Group II, placebo in similar-looking packs was continued for 3 days. The patients were evaluated on the third and seventh postoperative days for signs of clinical infection and for microbial load evaluation.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data between the two groups were statistically analyzed by the two-tailed Fisher's exact test, with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

The difference was not statistically significant between the test group and the control group with regard to erythema, dehiscence, swelling, pain, trismus, and infection based on microbial load. The data were statistically significant for alveolar osteitis, with the occurrence of alveolar osteitis (14.58%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative antibiotics are recommended only for patients undergoing contaminated, long-duration surgery.

Comparative trial between the use of amoxicillin and amoxicillin clavulanate in the removal of third molars

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of amoxicillin (1g) vs amoxicillin and clavulanate (875/125mg) after extraction of retained third molars for prevention of infectious complications. Study Design: The study involved 546 patients attending for removal a retained third molar and divided in to two groups: Group 1 - amoxicillin and clavunate (875/125mg) group (n=257) and Group 2 - amoxicillin (1g) group (n=289). All patients were recalled for investigating the possibility of infection, presence of diarrhea and further analgesic intake. Results: From a total of 546 patients, the frequency of infection was 1.4%, without no statistically differences between the two groups. Group 1 showed statistically higher presence of patients with gastrointestinal complications (p>0.05). In 546 patients, 2.7% of patients reported severe pain that would not relieve with medication. Conclusions: The results of our study show that the use of amoxicillin (1g) and amoxicillin and clavunate (875/125mg) is similar efficacious in preventing infection after retained third molar extraction but amoxicillin and clavunate (875/125mg) produces more gastrointestinal discomfort.

Key words:Amoxicillin, clavulanate, third molars, complications.

Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 2000/125 mg to prevent complications due to infection following completely bone-impacted lower third molar removal: a clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent infection following completely bone-impacted lower third molar removal.

STUDY DESIGN

A random, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial including 118 adults randomly allocated to placebo (60 patients) or antibiotic treatment (58 patients): 2 g amoxicillin/125 mg clavulanic acid 2 hours before the surgery and post-operatively twice a day for 4 days. Infection was clinically assessed until 8 weeks after surgery. Adverse events, as well as clinical and surgical variables, were recorded. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Infections developed in five patients in the placebo group, all in the first postoperative week, and in two in the antibiotic group, both after the first week, the difference not being statistically significant (P = .278, number needed to treat 19 [8-∞]). There were no relationships between any variables studied and infection. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of this antibiotic treatment.

A comparative clinical evaluation of the effect of preoperative and postoperative antimicrobial therapy on postoperative sequelae after impacted mandibular third molar extraction

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of preoperative and postoperative antibiotics therapy on postoperative sequelae after impacted mandibular third molar extractions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted at Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the Lagos University Teaching Hospitalon consecutive patients with impacted third molar extractions for a 12 month period. Group I (n = 31) had administration of 1 gram of oral metronidazole and 1 gram of amoxicillin capsules 30 minutes preoperative and Group II (n = 31) had 500 milligrams of amoxicillin capsule 8 hourly and 400 milligrams of metronidazole tablets administered post operatively for 5 days. Pain, facial swelling and mouth opening assessment were done postoperatively and on days 1, 3 and 7.

RESULTS

The general pattern of postoperative pain, regardless of antimicrobial use revealed that pain increased from day 1 to day 3 postoperatively and began to decrease in intensity subsequently up to the seventh day. There was however a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0001) between the two groups on the 7th postoperative day with the subjects in Group I showing lower pain intensity. The mean difference of the facial width on days 1 and 3 was significant (P = 0.04 and P = 0.0001 respectively) with subjects in Group II having a reduced facial width compared to those in Group I.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that the administration of preoperative or postoperative antibiotics showed no marked differences in the degree of postoperative sequaele that occur after impacted mandibular third molar extractions.

Sutureless technique in third molar surgery: an overview

Sutureless technique following mandibular third molar surgery is an endearing concept in modern oral and maxillofacial surgery: regardless, few articles appear in literature with different methods, results, and flaps. A modern state of the art of this technique does not exist.In this article, an overview of studies regarding sutureless technique in mandibular third molar surgery is presented: relation to postoperative infection, recovery, and proper flap are discussed.

Sharp mandibular bone irregularities after lower third molar extraction: incidence, clinical features and risk factors

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and clinical symptoms associated with sharp mandibular bone irregularities (SMBI) after lower third molar extraction and to identify possible risk factors for this complication. Study Design: A mixed study design was used. A retrospective cohort study of 1432 lower third molar extractions was done to determine the incidence of SMBI and a retrospective case-control study was done to determine potential demographic and etiologic factors by comparing those patients with postoperative SMBI with controls. Results: Twelve SMBI were found (0.84%). Age was the most important risk factor for this complication. The operated side and the presence of an associated radiolucent image were also significantly related to the development of mandibular bone irregularities. The depth of impaction of the tooth might also be an important factor since erupted or nearly erupted third molars were more frequent in the SMBI group. Conclusions: SMBI are a rare postoperative complication after lower third molar removal. Older patients having left side lower third molars removed are more likely to develop this problem. The treatment should be the removal of the irregularity when the patient is symptomatic.

Key words:Third molar, postoperative complication, bone irregularities, age.

A single dose of amoxicillin and dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative complications in third molar surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a single prophylactic dose of amoxicillin and/or dexamethasone in preventing postoperative complications (PC) after a surgical removal of a single mandibular third molar (M3).

Methods

This study is a randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial. Four groups were included: Group 1 (G1) included a prophylactic dose of 2 g of amoxicillin and 8 mg of dexamethasone; Group 2 (G2) included a prophylactic dose of 2 g of amoxicillin and 8 mg of placebo; Group 3 (G3) included a prophylactic dose of 8 mg of dexamethasone and 2 g of placebo and; Group 4 (G4) placebo.

Results

Fifty patients were included. It was observed one case of alveolar infection (2%) and two of alveolar osteitis (4%) resulting in three PC (6%). No statistical differences were observed between therapeutic groups for development of PC, trismus, pain and edema. The use of antibiotics showed an absolute risk reduction (ARR) for PC development of 3.52% and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 29.

Conclusion

Prophylactic antibiotics and corticoid in a single dose regimen did not bring any benefit on M3 surgeries.

Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions

BACKGROUND

The most frequent indications for tooth extractions are dental caries and periodontal infections, and these extractions are generally done by general dental practitioners. Antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the development of infectious complications following tooth extractions.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 25 January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 25 January 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 25 January 2012) and LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 25 January 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. The quality of the body of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE tool.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 18 double-blind placebo-controlled trials with a total of 2456 participants. Five trials were assessed at unclear risk of bias, thirteen at high risk, and none at low risk of bias. Compared to placebo, antibiotics probably reduce the risk of infection in patients undergoing third molar extraction(s) by approximately 70% (RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.50) P < 0.0001, 1523 participants, moderate quality evidence) which means that 12 people (range 10-17) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. There is evidence that antibiotics may reduce the risk of dry socket by 38% (RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.95) P = 0.03, 1429 participants, moderate quality evidence) which means that 38 people (range 24-250) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. There is also some evidence that patients who have prophylactic antibiotics may have less pain (MD -8.17 (95% CI -11.90 to -4.45) P < 0.0001, 372 participants, moderate quality evidence ) overall 7 days after the extraction compared to those receiving placebo, which may be a direct result of the lower risk of infection. There is no evidence of a difference between antibiotics and placebo in the outcomes of fever (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.99), swelling (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.30) or trismus (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.71) 7 days after tooth extraction.Antibiotics are associated with an increase in generally mild and transient adverse effects compared to placebo (RR 1.98 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.59) P = 0.02) which means that for every 21 people (range 8-200) who receive antibiotics, an adverse effect is likely.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, there were no trials identified which evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in this group of patients in this setting. All of the trials included in this review included healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. There is evidence that prophylactic antibiotics reduce the risk of infection, dry socket and pain following third molar extraction and result in an increase in mild and transient adverse effects. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to those with concomitant illnesses or immunodeficiency, or those undergoing the extraction of teeth due to severe caries or periodontitis. However, patients at a higher risk of infection are more likely to benefit from prophylactic antibiotics, because infections in this group are likely to be more frequent, associated with complications and be more difficult to treat. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria which are resistant to treatment by currently available antibiotics, clinicians should consider carefully whether treating 12 healthy patients with antibiotics to prevent one infection is likely to do more harm than good.