Postextraction infections, prevention, and treatment

Postoperative infection is one of the most common complications of tooth extraction. It may manifest as localized infection or develop to systemic infection. Clinically, oral surgeons can prevent postoperative infections by urging patients to strengthen oral hygiene, applying antibiotics in a rational and compliant manner, and choosing appropriate surgical methods for tooth extraction. For the treatment of infection, the oral surgeon should formulate a response strategy on the basis of different diagnoses. For local infections such as dry socket, delayed alveolar osteitis, gap infection, and marginal osteomyelitis of the jaws, the infection can be controlled by local debridement, therapeutic use of antibiotics, and incise and drain if necessary. For patients suspected of necrotizing fasciitis, timely extensive debridement should be made to reduce the area of tissue necrosis. For those who have received radiotherapy or anti-resorptive drugs, tooth extraction should follow the recommendations of the relevant clinical guidelines or expert consensus to minimize the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaws. For patients with poor systemic health or dysfunction of the immune system, attention should be paid to identifying infective endocarditis and intracranial infection to ensure the life safety of patients. In this study, the author intends to combine literature review and clinical experience to tackle postextraction infection and its prevention to provide a reference for colleagues on oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Risk factors for oral infection and dry socket post-tooth extraction in medically complex patients in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis: A case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Dry socket and infection are complications of tooth extractions. The objective was to determine risk factors for post-extraction complications in patients without antibiotic prophylaxis stratified by early- and late-complications and complication type (oral infection and dry socket).

METHODS

Retrospective, case (with complications)-control (without complications) study of patients (n = 708) who had ≥1 extraction performed at any Veterans Health Administration facility between 2015-2019 and were not prescribed an antibiotic 30 days pre-extraction.

RESULTS

Early complication cases (n = 109) were more likely to be female [odds ratio (OR) = 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.05-4.01], younger (OR = 0.29; 95% CI:0.09-0.94 patients ≥ 80 years old, reference:18-44 years), Native American/Alaska Native (OR = 21.11; 95% CI:2.33-191.41) and have fewer teeth extracted (OR = 0.53 3+ teeth extracted; 95% CI:0.31-0.88, reference:1 tooth extracted). Late complication cases (n = 67) were more likely to have a bipolar diagnosis (OR = 2.98; 95% CI:1.04-8.57), history of implant placement (OR = 8.27; 95% CI:1.63-41.82), and history of past smoking (OR = 2.23; 95% CI:1.28-3.88).

CONCLUSION

Predictors for post-extraction complications among patients who did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis were similar to prior work in cohorts who received prophylaxis. Unique factors identified in a medically complex population included being younger, Native American/Alaska Native, having mental health conditions, history of a dental implant, and fewer teeth extracted.

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.

Prophylactic therapy for prevention of surgical site infection after extraction of third molar: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

To compare the effect of different prophylactic therapies on prevention of surgical site infection after extraction of third molars with different degree of impaction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the effect of different prophylactic therapies on prevention of surgical site infection after extraction of third molars were included. An electronic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to evaluate the confidence in results from the included reviews. Descriptive analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Six reviews were included. A significant benefit of different antibiotics to the prevention of site infection after extraction of third molars was reported. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin clavulanic acid could significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection versus placebo. Chlorhexidine gel could significantly reduce the frequency of alveolar osteitis versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence, there is a significant benefit of prophylactic therapy while the comparative effect of different types of prophylactic regimes are controversial.

Does the Choice of Preparation Protocol for Platelet-Rich Fibrin Have Consequences for Healing and Alveolar Ridge Preservation After Tooth Extraction? A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Multiple preparation protocols for platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are in use today, and clinical results are often heterogeneous. This study analyzes the impact of the chosen PRF preparation protocol on 1) wound healing and 2) alveolar ridge preservation.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, eligible studies were identified in PubMed and Cochrane databases. Included were randomized controlled and controlled clinical trials with healthy patients treated with PRF after atraumatic tooth extraction compared to untreated socket(s), reporting at least one of the following outcome variables: pain, swelling, soft tissue healing, alveolar osteitis risk, horizontal and vertical bone loss, socket fill, and new bone formation. Main predictor variable was relative centrifugal force (RCF) comparing high RCF (high PRF), intermediate RCF (standard [S-PRF]), low RCF (advanced PRF), and various RCF settings (concentrated growth factor preparation [CGF]). The type of centrifugation tubes (silica-coated plastic and glass) was a secondary predictor. Weighted or standardized mean differences, risk ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected. The pooled effects of all outcomes were significant against untreated sockets. Within the subgroups high PRF or advanced PRF had the lowest efficacy for many outcome parameters. Pain reduction (in visual analog scale units) was highest for S-PRF (-1.18 [-1.48, -0.88], P < .00001) and CGF (-1.03 [-1.16, -0.90], P < .001). The risk ratio of alveolar osteitis (0.09 [0.01, 0.69], P < .02) and soft tissue healing (standardized mean difference = 2.55 [2.06, 3.03], P < .001) were best for CGF. No subgroup differences were found for bone-related outcomes. No meaningful analysis of the tube material effect was possible.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that PRF is associated with reduced postoperative complications but indicates that preparation protocol influences clinical outcomes. S-PRF and CGF protocols appear to be superior for several outcome parameters.

Comparison between ozone and CHX gel application for reduction of pain and incidence of dry socket after lower third molar removal

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy between ozone gas and 1% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel in the incidence of dry socket after surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Overall, 30 patients of both genders were included in the study, with indication of surgical extraction of lower third molar, positioned similarly after being clinically and radiographically checked by X-ray and orthopantomography. Each patient was subjected to both groups in separate sessions: treated with ozone gas and with CHX gel 1%. Data on pain intensity, number of taken analgesics-painkillers, and dry socket were recorded for 48 h and at Day 7.

RESULTS

Ozone gas and CHX gel effectively reduced pain intensity and prevented dry socket. The number of taken analgesics 48 h and 7 days after surgery showed no statistical significance. The same was observed for the distribution of pain. Only one patient reported the occurrence of dry socket 7 days after the surgical extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Ozone gas and CHX 1% gel are both efficient in decreasing postoperative symptoms and incidence rates of dry socket, but in comparison to each other, the use of ozone gas is showing a bit better prevention capability.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket)

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively.  Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket  Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.

Is it worth applying self-irrigation after third molar extraction? A randomised controlled trial

In this study, we aimed to examine the effectiveness of self-irrigation following the extraction of mandibular third molars. A randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted with 155 patients who had undergone extraction of a mandibular third molar. The irrigation group was instructed to self-irrigate the extraction socket with tap water using a syringe three times a day, starting seven days after the tooth extraction. The incidence of complications and mouth opening, halitosis, plaque/gingival index, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were measured. The irrigation group showed a lower incidence of complications than the non-irrigation group. The halitosis, plaque, and gingival scores were lower by mean (SD) 19.66 (5.19), 0.58 (0.06), and 0.62 (0.08), respectively, in the irrigation group than in the non-irrigation group (p = 0.0001). A greater amount of food packing was associated with higher halitosis, plaque, and gingival scores and poorer OHRQoL (p < 0.05). Further, more frequent irrigation was associated with lower halitosis, plaque, and gingival scores and better OHRQoL (p ≤ 0.016). Self-irrigation of the extraction socket using a syringe containing tap water is a very effective method for keeping the extraction socket clean. This technique reduced halitosis, improved plaque and gingival indices, and increased OHRQoL.

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.

Effectiveness of warm saline mouth bath in preventing alveolar osteitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of a warm saline mouth bath (WSMB) in preventing dry socket after tooth extractions. A systematic search for randomized controlled trials published until August 30, 2020, in seven databases was conducted: Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry. The inclusion criteria were studies investigating the use of a warm saline mouth bath postoperatively in a population of participants who had a tooth extraction, compared to no mouth rinse at all/any other mouth rinse. The primary outcome assessed in the studies was the incidence of alveolar osteitis. Only eight randomized studies met all inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative analysis. Six of the studies compared WSMB with antimicrobial rinses, and two studies compared WSMB with no-rinse. This review found no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the incidence of alveolar osteitis between WSMB and other antimicrobial rinses. Based on the results of this review, WSMB has potential in reducing post-operative complications such as alveolar osteitis following a routine or surgical extraction of teeth. However, more studies are needed to validate these findings, as most of the studies reviewed had a high level of bias.

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.

Preventing Alveolar Osteitis After Molar Extraction Using Chlorhexidine Rinse and Gel: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (AO) may occur after molar extraction. Chlorhexidine (CHX) rinse and CHX gel are widely used to prevent AO. Although previous meta-analyses support the effectiveness of both CHX rinse and CHX gel in preventing AO, important issues regarding these two formulations have not been addressed adequately in the literature.

PURPOSE

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to determine the effectiveness of CHX rinse and CHX gel in preventing AO.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published before June 2018. The risk ratio (RR) was used to estimate the pooled effect of AO incidence using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

The RRs of AO in patients treated with 0.12% CHX rinse (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.41, 0.72]) and 0.2% CHX rinse (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.52, 1.35]) were significantly lower than in those treated with the control. Moreover, a significantly lower RR was identified in patients treated with 0.2% CHX gel (RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.34, 0.64]) than in those treated with the control. When CHX products of different concentrations were grouped together, patients treated with CHX rinse showed an RR of AO of 0.61 (95% CI [0.48, 0.78]) and those treated with CHX gel showed an RR of AO of 0.44 (95% CI [0.43, 0.65]). On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three trials that compared CHX rinse and CHX gel directly showed a significantly lower RR of AO in patients treated with CHX rinse than in those treated with CHX gel (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.34, 0.96]).

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results support the effectiveness of both CHX rinse and gel in reducing the risk of AO after molar extraction. Each formulation provides unique benefits in terms of ease of application and cost. On the basis of the results of this study, the authors recommend that CHX gel be used immediately after molar extraction because of the convenience and cost-effectiveness of this treatment and that CHX rinse be used by the patient after discharge at home in combination with appropriate health education and case management.

Effect on wound healing of a topical gel containing amino acid and sodium hyaluronate applied to the alveolar socket after mandibular third molar extraction: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the effect of topical applications of an amino acid and sodium hyaluronate gel after mandibular third molar extraction.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

136 patients requiring mandibular third molar extraction were enrolled. An amino acid and sodium hyaluronate gel was applied to the sockets of patients in the test group immediately following the extraction. The sockets of controls were simply flushed with a sterile saline solution. Patients' outcomes and postoperative complications were assessed 7 and 14 days after surgery. The cumulative incidence of dehiscence and secondary outcome measures were analyzed using a chi-square test.

RESULTS

Concerning the primary outcome, the incidence of dehiscence was 27.4% after 7 days in the treatment group and 36.4% in the controls (P = .28), and at 14 days it was 21.4% and 36.0%, respectively (P = .10). No statistically significant differences emerged in other variables (mouth opening range, appearance of soft tissue, presence of pus, pain on palpation of the alveolar socket, alveolitis, local lymphadenopathy, and adverse reactions). Pain perception was always lower in the treatment group during the first 7 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Topical applications of an amino acid and sodium hyaluronate gel after mandibular third molar extraction made no statistically significant difference to the variables examined in the test and control groups.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This trial focused on postoperative complications after surgical third molar extraction. The use of a gel containing amino acid and sodium hyaluronate was investigated for the management of postoperative pain, edema, alveolitis, wound dehiscence and swelling.

Influence of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on the outcomes of impacted mandibular third molar removal surgery: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) extraction wound healing, patient postoperative discomfort, and incidence of alveolar osteitis.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Thirty-four patients (20 female, 14 male) who met the inclusion criteria for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial were enrolled and 30 patients completed the study. Patients were randomized and underwent bilateral IMTM surgical extractions. Following extraction, one socket randomly received L-PRF, and the other socket served as a regular blood clot control. Postoperatively, the soft tissue healing index (HI), pain according to visual analog scale (VAS), facial swelling using a horizontal and vertical guide, and incidence of alveolar osteitis were evaluated 1, 3, 7, and 14 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Sites treated with L-PRF resulted in improved HI (P = .001) and lower pain VAS scores (P = .001) in the first postoperative week. Significant reduction of facial swelling was recorded on first (P = .035) and third (P = .023) postoperative days in L-PRF sites versus controls, ceasing to nonsignificant difference at day 7 (P = .224). None of the L-PRF sites and four control sites were affected by alveolar osteitis (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this split-mouth study, L-PRF improved soft tissue healing and reduced postoperative pain, swelling, and incidence of alveolar osteitis after IMTM surgical extractions.

Alveolar Osteitis: Patient's Compliance with Post-extraction Instructions Following Permanent Teeth Extraction

AIM

The study aims to evaluate the patients' compliance with post-extraction instructions to prevent the development of alveolar osteitis and keep the health of the socket. Alveolar osteitis "Dry socket" is considered one of the most common complications after extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study was based on an observational cross-sectional design involving 201 subjects (individuals). The subjects were evaluated via a survey questionnaire and clinical examination after obtaining their verbal and written consent. The study questionnaire was divided into the following sections; section one records the demographic data about the subject while the second section focuses on self-assessment mainly regarding compliance with post-extraction instructions and pain.

RESULTS

A total number of patients included in the study was 201, 122 (60.7%) male and 79 (39.3%) female with an age of more than 18 years. No statistically significant association was reported between a medical condition and dry socket. Out of 201 patients came for clinical examination, 89 felt pain at the site of extraction at different period started from the day of extraction till the day of examination with various pain intensity. Females were the most to feel pain after tooth extraction with 78%. Regarding prevalence, 14 (7%) patients reported having dry socket and poor socket status. A statistically significant association of non-complying patients with the incidence of the dry socket was observed for a wide range of age (18 to 40 years) Conclusion: The study showed a high degree of association between the incidence of dry socket cases for patients with poor compliance with post-extraction instruction. A strong relation was observed between the patients who felt pain and their gender (females) Clinical significance: Based on the findings of the present study, we recommend the need to properly educate patients on the effect of compliance and the various complications and factors affecting the socket status after tooth extraction due to non-compliance.

Role Of 0.2% Bio-Adhesive Chlorhexidine Gel In Reducing Incidence Of Alveolar Osteitis

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis is a frequent postoperative complication of third molar surgery. A number of preventive methods have been tried. Chlorhexidine is most widely used antiseptic which is thought to be helpful to prevent alveolar osteitis. The objective of this study was to evaluate role of 0.2% bio-adhesive chlorhexidine gel in reducing incidence of alveolar osteitis after surgical removal of mandibular third molars which causes extra monetary burden on the patients in the form of several follow up visits..

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was performed in the Dental Section, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. Approval from ethical committee was obtained. Total 180 patients were randomly divided into Group A in which patients received 0.2% bio-adhesive chlorhexidine gel and Group B where patients received placebo gel in the extraction socket after removal of mandibular third molar.

RESULTS

0.2% bio-adhesive chlorhexidine gel used after mandibular third molar removal reduced incidence of alveolar osteitis by 10% in comparison to control group with statistically significant difference, i.e., p=0.044..

CONCLUSIONS

2.3 times reduction in the incidence of alveolar osteitis was observed after use of 0.2% bio-adhesive chlorhexidine gel.

Comparison of Envelope and Modified Triangular Flaps on Incidence of Dry Socket after Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Double-blind, Split-mouth Study

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the impact of modified triangular flap (MTF) compared with the envelope flap (EF) on the incidence of dry socket and healing degree after lower-impacted third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Present research was executed on 31 patients between the ages 17 and 24 years with the indication of removing impacted mandibular third molars in both sides with similar difficulty. The impacts of MTF and EF on degree of incidence of dry socket and healing on 3rd day and 1 week after surgery were recorded and investigated in a double-blinded manner. The significant changes in mentioned indices in two groups were statistically judged using Chi-squared and Wilcoxon's statistical tests.

RESULTS

Three patients were excluded during the survey and 28 patients (56 samples) remained. The patients' average age was 20.1 years. Totally, 19 patients were female and 11 of them had academic education. Degree of dry socket incidence in MTF group was 11.76% and it was 41.17% in EF group (p = 0.042). In the follow-up session after 3 days since the surgery, healing degree mean in MTF group was 3.16 ± 1.5 and it was 4.37 ± 1.8 in EF group (p = 0.112). In follow-up session 7 days after the surgery, mean healing degree in MTF group was 0.037 ± 0.6 and it was 0.89 ± 0.73 in EF group (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Present study indicated that application of MTF may lead to a reduction in dry socket incidence and an increase of healing after 7 days since lower-impacted third molar surgeries.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Reducing postsurgery complication incidences following third molar surgery is an important issue, which could easily be achieved by designing appropriate flaps.

The efficacy of chlorhexidine gel in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis is a very painful and distressing condition for a patient who has recently undergone a tooth extraction and has led dental professionals to search for preventive measures. The aim of this meta-analysis to determine the effect of chlorhexidine (CHX) gel on the incidence of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction.

METHODS

Studies were searched for on electronic search engines using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane central, Scopus and advanced Google Scholar from May 2015 to December 2015. Randomized controlled trial studies with a history of mandibular third molar extraction, along with the administration of topical chlorhexidine gel were included. The risk of bias of the selected articles was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. RevMan 5.3 Software was used to analyze the pooled effect. I2 was calculated to determine heterogeneity and a funnel plot was used to check the risk of bias. Subgroup analysis was also done based on the presence of confounding factors (smoking, oral contraceptive etc.) and on split mouth design.

RESULTS

Out of 52 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. 862 participants were involved in the selected studies with a mean age range from 24.15 ± 5.02 to 36.65 ± 11. The overall RR was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.58, p < 0.00001). Three studies used a split-mouth design to check the effect of chlorhexidine gel in the prevention of alveolar osteitis incidence. There was a pooled effect of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.50) for the intervention group in the split mouth design studies. A stratified analysis was done to check the effect of CHX gel in patients with confounding factors and a significant reduction of AO incidence was found; 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.87; p = 0.05) in the intervention. There was no reported adverse reaction. The heterogeneity (I2) was 40%. The funnel plot showed that there was no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that CHX gel is superior to a placebo in reducing the incidence of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction.

Prevention of Alveolar Osteitis. A Case Report and Review of Literature

Alveolar osteitis (aka, "dry socket") is a frustrating complication of exodontia, especially in the posterior mandible. We describe a novel technique for its possible prevention. The method involves administration of doxycycline dispersed in a local anesthetic solution, along with the use of a Gelfoam carrier. The senior author has used this technique as a routine element of care for several decades without complication.

A retrospective study on the use of a dental dressing to reduce dry socket incidence in smokers

This study assessed the effectiveness of using an oxidized cellulose dental dressing in order to reduce the rate of alveolar osteitis after posterior tooth extraction in smokers. Dry socket incidences of heavy smokers from 4 independent dental clinics, which routinely used oxidized cellulose dental dressings to mitigate dry socket formation between March 2011 and December 2012, were compiled and evaluated. All extraction sites healed uneventfully except for those cases that developed dry sockets. Overall, 1.7% of male patients and 2.2% of female patients developed dry sockets. No conclusive relationship was found between the number of cigarettes smoked and dry socket formation among patients in this study. The results of this study were consistent with the view that gender, age, postextraction regimen, and multiple extractions affect dry socket formation. The results indicate that an oxidized cellulose dental dressing postextraction is a safe and effective method for mitigating dry socket formation among smokers.

Role of warm saline mouth rinse in prevention of alveolar osteitis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The present study was aimed at determining the role warm saline rinse in the prevention of alveolar osteitis following dental extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Apparently patients aged 16 and above who were referred to the Oral Surgery Clinic of our institution, with an indication for non-surgical extraction of pathologic teeth were prospectively and uniformly randomized into warm saline group and control. The experimental group (n = 80) were instructed to gargle 6 times daily with warm saline and no such instructions were given to the second group (n = 80) to serve as controls. Information on demographic, indications for extraction, and development of alveolar osteitis were obtained and analyzed. Comparative statistics were done using Pearson's chi square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The demographic and other baseline parameters such as indications for extractions were comparable among the study groups (p > 0.05). The overall prevalence of alveolar osteitis was 13.7%. There was a statistical significant difference between the study groups with respect to development of alveolar osteitis (X2 = 15.00, df = 1, p = 0.001).The risk of development of alveolar osteitis was 4 times higher in the control group (OR = 4.33, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Warm saline mouth rinse instruction is beneficial in the prevention of development of alveolar osteitis after dental extractions.

[Modified polyurethane foam as a local hemostatic agent after dental extractions]

In this split mouth experiment, the feasibility ofpolyurethane foam as a local hemostatic agent after dental extractions was studied. Ten healthy patients underwent 2 extractions ofa dental element in 1 treatment session. The 10 patients were subsequently randomly divided in a gelatin group and a collagen group. In the gelatin group, a polyurethane foam (PU) was applied in 1 extraction socket, while in the other socket a commercially available gelatin foam was applied. In the collagen group, a PU was applied in 1 socket, and a collagen wadding in the other. All hemostats were removed after 2 minutes, after which the degree of coagulation was measured using a thrombin/antithrombin test and a fibrinogen test. This study suggests that polyurethane foam has hemostatic capacity. Large scale clinical research is needed to confirm this finding, and should indicate whether this hemostatic capacity is clinically relevant.

Routine and complicated extractions: avoiding and managing complications

Dental extractions are commonly performed procedures in dentistry. For a number of different reasons, there can be serious complications both during surgical procedures and during patient recovery. Many of these complications can be avoided by recognizing "red flags" in advance of untoward events and by taking steps to prevent or manage such problems. Prior to surgery, the dentist needs quality radiographs, must be familiar with the patient's health conditions and medications, and have the knowledge and expertise to perform routine and "surgical" extractions safely, expeditiously, and with minimal (if any) loss of adjacent bone. This article, although not "all-inclusive," outlines procedures that help us either confirm correct methods we are already using or enhance our ability to become better. It reviews items that clinicians must be aware of and anticipate to allow exodontia to be done more smoothly and effectively.

Antibiotics or no antibiotics: reflections on Ren and Malmstrom

This article is intended to be a review of current studies on the effectiveness of antibiotics in limiting postoperative complications after third molar exractions; in search of conclusions above and beyond Ren and Malmstroms' excellent meta-analysis.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket)

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions and occurs more commonly in extractions involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of blood clot and in some patients there may be a complaint of halitosis. It can result in an increase in postoperative visits.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of local interventions for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 29 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 29 October 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 29 October 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted experts and organisations to identify any further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket post-extraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques for the management of dry socket because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently undertook risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate for included studies using pre-designed proformas. Any reports of adverse events were recorded and summarised into a table when these were available. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We followed The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio instead. We used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials with 2570 participants met the inclusion criteria; 18 trials with 2376 participants for the prevention of dry socket and three studies with 194 participants for the treatment of dry socket. The risk of bias assessment identified six studies at high risk of bias, 14 studies at unclear risk of bias and one studies at low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and after extraction(s) prevented approximately 42% of dry socket(s) with a RR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; P < 0.001) (four trials, 750 participants, moderate quality of evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varied from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated with (0.12% and 0.2%) chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket (NNT) was 232 (95% CI 176 to 417), 47 (95% CI 35 to 84) and 8 (95% CI 6 to 14) for control prevalences of dry socket of 1%, 5% and 30% respectively.Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) after extractions prevented approximately 58% of dry socket(s) with a RR of 0.42 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.87; P = 0.02) (two trials, in 133 participants, moderate quality of evidence). The number of patients needed to be treated with chlorhexidine gel to prevent one patient having dry socket (NNT) was 173 (95% CI 127 to 770), 35 (95% CI 25 to 154) and 6 (95% CI 5 to 26) for control prevalences of dry socket of 1%, 5% and 30% respectively.A further 10 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and therefore there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Five interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in a total of three studies providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most tooth extractions are undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but three studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is some evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, provides a benefit in preventing dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 10 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any of the interventions to treat dry socket. The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% and 2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses, though most studies were not designed to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket (though previous allergy to chlorhexidine was an exclusion criterion in these trials). In view of recent reports in the UK of two cases of serious adverse events associated with irrigation of dry socket with chlorhexidine mouthrinse, it is recommended that all members of the dental team prescribing chlorhexidine products are aware of the potential for both minor and serious adverse side effects.