Chlorhexidine for the prevention of alveolar osteitis

Efficacy of Chlorhexidine after Oral Surgery Procedures on Wound Healing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Our objective was to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, available evidence on the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) when applied after oral surgery on wound healing and related clinical parameters. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published before January 2023. The quality of the methodology used in primary-level studies was assessed using the RoB2 tool; meta-analyses were performed jointly with heterogeneity and small-study effect analyses. Thirty-three studies and 4766 cases were included. The results point out that the application of CHX was significantly more effective, compared to controls where CHX was not employed, providing better wound healing after oral surgery (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.55-0.80, p < 0.001). Stratified meta-analyses confirmed the higher efficacy of 0.20% CHX gel vs. other vehicles and concentrations (p < 0.001, respectively). Likewise, the addition of chitosan to CHX significantly increased the efficacy of surgical wound healing (p < 0.001). The use of CHX has also been significantly beneficial in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after any type of dental extraction (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.39-0.53, p < 0.001) and has also been effective when applied as a gel for a reduction in pain after the surgical extraction of third molars (MD = -0.97, 95% CI = -1.26 to -0.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate on the basis of evidence that the application of CHX exerts a beneficial effect on wound healing after oral surgical procedures, significantly decreasing the patient's risk of developing surgical complications and/or poor wound healing. This benefit was greater when CHX was used at 0.20% in gel form with the addition of chitosan.

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.

Randomized Study on Postoperative Intra-alveolar Betadine Irrigation Versus Chlorhexidine Irrigation on the Incidence of Occurrence of Alveolar Osteitis After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of two different antiseptic solutions for irrigation of the extraction socket and the incidence of occurrence of dry socket in the sample population in Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

Patients and Methods

A prospective and randomized study among the patients reporting to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars under local anesthesia was done in a group of 100 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two different intervention groups (groups A and B) were allocated which comprised irrigation of the extraction sockets continuously up to 7 postoperative days with chlorhexidine (hexidine 0.2% ICPA) and povidone iodine (Betadine^® mouthwash 1%), respectively. Pain, edema, trismus, alveolar osteitis, infection, wound dehiscence and food debris impaction were the various outcome variables.

Results

A total of 100 patients participated in this study, while there was a loss in the follow-up of 5 patients. Pain scores, edema and the incidence of occurrence of alveolar osteitis were significantly reduced in group A (p < 0.05). The effect on trismus was statistically insignificant. Pain scores had reduced significantly on the 7th-day follow-up in group A as compared to group B (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Chlorhexidine is therefore a good option for irrigation of the surgical site. There is also a decrease in incidence of occurrence of AO with chlorhexidine irrigation than with that of povidone iodine irrigation. Hence, chlorhexidine can be preferred over betadine for the routine preparation and irrigation of the surgical site.

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.

Angiogenesis and the prevention of alveolar osteitis: a review study

Angiogenesis is one of the essential processes that occur during wound healing. It is responsible for providing immunity as well as the regenerative cells, nutrition, and oxygen needed for the healing of the alveolar socket following tooth extraction. The inappropriate removal of formed blood clots causes the undesirable phenomenon of alveolar osteitis (AO) or dry socket. In this review, we aimed to investigate whether enhanced angiogenesis contributes to a more effective prevention of AO. The potential pro- or anti-angiogenic activity of different materials used for the treatment of AO were evaluated. An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases via OVID from January 2000 to September 2016 using the keywords mentioned in the PubMed and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms regarding the role of angiogenesis in the prevention of AO. Our initial search identified 408 articles using the keywords indicated above, with 38 of them meeting the inclusion criteria set for this review. Due to the undeniable role of angiogenesis in the socket healing process, it is beneficial if strategies for preventing AO are directed toward more proangiogenic materials and modalities.

Chlorhexidine for prevention of alveolar osteitis: a randomised clinical trial

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of chlorhexidine 0.12% mouthwash (CHX) after tooth extraction for the prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO).

Material and methods

We conducted a double-blind randomised clinical trial stratified by risk factors. We enrolled a cohort of 822 patients who underwent dental extractions, and were considered to be at risk of developing AO (previous surgical site infection, traumatic extraction, and tobacco smoking). After extraction, patients were randomly allocated for CHX group or placebo group, matched by risk factors. The primary outcome was clinical diagnosis of AO: increasing postoperative pain for 4 d within and around the socket, and total or partial breakdown of the blood clot in the socket with or without bone exposure.

Results

Follow-up was completed by 744 participants (372 chlorhexidine and 372 placebo). We detected no significant differences between the two groups at baseline. After completed follow-up, risk factors were equally distributed between the two groups. Overall incidence of OA was 4.97%, in which 27 participants treated with placebo (7.26%) and 10 participants treated with CHX (2.69%) developed AO. CHX reduced the incidence of AO by 63% [Absolute Risk Reduction: 4.57 (95% CI 1.5-7.7), Number Needed to Treat: 21.88 (95% CI 13.0-69.3), Fisher's exact test: p=0.006]. No adverse effects were reported.

Conclusion

The use of chlorhexidine 0.12% mouthwash after tooth extraction is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of AO in high-risk patients.

KNOWLEDGE GAPS IN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC MAPPING

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate available knowledge and identify knowledge gaps within the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, by systematically collecting and evaluating systematic reviews. Twelve specific domains were selected: surgical removal of teeth, antibiotic and corticosteroid prophylaxis, orofacial infections, dental and facial trauma, orthognathic surgery, reconstructive surgery, benign tumors, cysts, premalignant lesions, oral complications of treatment of malignant tumors, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, temporomandibular joint surgery, cost effectiveness of different surgical treatments, and ethics.

METHODS

The literature search, covering four databases, was conducted during September 2014: PubMed, The Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and EBSCO dentistry and oral science source. Retrieved systematic reviews were quality assessed by AMSTAR.

RESULTS

In all, 1,778 abstracts were identified, of which 200 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-five systematic reviews were assessed as of high to moderate quality. The results disclosed some existing evidence in a few domains, such as surgical removal of teeth and implant survival after sinus lifts. However, in all domains, the search revealed a large number of knowledge gaps. Also of concern was the lack of data regarding health economics and ethics.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is a need for well-conducted clinical research in the fields of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

The efficacy of 1% Betadine mouthwash on the incidence of dry socket after mandibular third molar surgery

Background

Dry socket or alveolar osteitis is a delayed healing of alveolar bone after exodontia causing moderate to severe pain 2-4 days after extraction of teeth. Antibacterial agents such as antibiotics and chlorhexidine have been previously proved to prevent or reduce the incidence of dry socket. Betadine is a mixture of iodine and povidone which has bactericidal, antifungal and antiviral effects. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative povidone iodine 1% mouthwash before surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar, however age, gender and oral hygiene were also considered.

Material and Methods

189 patients who needed surgical extraction of Pell and Gregory class A and B mandibular third molars were included in this study. The patients who were not willing to participate in the study, took, women who took oral contraceptives or were in the first 22 days of menstrual cycle were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to control or test group. 97 patients in the test group took preoperative povidone iodine 1% mouthwash and 92 patients in the control group didn’t take any antibiotic or mouthwash. Patients were examined in days 3 and 7 postoperatively for incidence of alveolar osteitis.

Results

Chi-square test didn’t show any significant relation between dry socket incidence and gender (p value: 0.848) and Oral hygiene (p value: 0.866). However, it revealed a significant relation between age and dry socket incidence (p value: 0.003) and patients older than 30 were reported to have higher incidence of dry socket. Independent T-Test showed a significant difference between the test and control group in incidence of dry socket (p value: 0.036).

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study povidone iodine 1% mouthwash can decrease dry socket incidence also as the age increases, the incidence of dry socket becomes higher.

Key words:Dry socket, impaction, betadine, povidone iodine.

Effectiveness of irrigation with chlorhexidine after removal of mandibular third molars: a randomised controlled trial

To evaluate the effect of postoperative irrigation with chlorhexidine on inflammatory complications after the extraction of lower third molars under local anaesthesia, we recruited 100 patients to participate in a controlled, single-blind, randomised clinical trial. They were assigned to one of two groups: the intervention group (postoperative irrigation of the surgical site with chlorhexidine for seven days) or the control group (postoperative chlorhexidine mouth rinse for seven days). The primary outcome variables were pain, swelling, trismus, infection, and alveolar osteitis. The secondary outcome variables were wound dehiscence and food impaction. A total of 95 participants completed the study (47 in the irrigation group and 48 in the rinse group). In the irrigation group, alveolar osteitis and facial swelling had reduced significantly at seven days postoperatively (both p<0.01). Pain scores had also reduced significantly at seven days (p<0.01), but not at 48hours, and patients had lower levels of food impaction (p<0.01) and less severe symptoms (p=0.02). Routine irrigation with chlorhexidine after the extraction of third molars helps to reduce pain and lowers the incidence of alveolar osteitis.

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.

Does Chlorhexidine Prevent Alveolar Osteitis After Third Molar Extractions? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) in dental extractions remains a controversial issue. Chlorhexidine is one of the most widely studied antiseptics for the prevention of AO. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of AO after third molar extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched databases and the references of each article retrieved up to December 2015. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using only chlorhexidine were included. The predictor variable was whether chlorhexidine was used in any formulation, concentration, or regimen. The outcome measurement was the incidence of postoperative AO. The authors also recorded variables describing the characteristics of the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 12.0. Meta-analysis of binary data was conducted using a fixed-effects model. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Forest, l'Abbé, and funnel plots were constructed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies published from 1979 to 2015, corresponding to 18 trials (16 parallel-group and 2 split-mouth RCTs), that reported on 2,824 third molar extractions (1,458 in experimental group and 1,366 in control group) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P < .0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 9.3%; P = .336 by χ² test). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% CI, 7-11). There were no relevant differences between chlorhexidine rinse (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71) and gel (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60). Chlorhexidine did not cause a larger proportion of adverse reactions than placebo.

CONCLUSION

The use of chlorhexidine, in any formulation, concentration, or regimen, is efficacious and effective in preventing AO in patients who have undergone third molar extraction. Chlorhexidine gel was found to be moderately more efficacious than the rinse formulation.

Allergy to Chlorhexidine

Chlorhexidine is an effective antiseptic which is widely used in dentistry. Over recent years, it has also been used in other healthcare products as well as in cosmetics. Anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine has been increasingly reported throughout the world, including two incidents in the UK where chlorhexidine-containing mouthwash had been used to wash tooth sockets following recent tooth extraction. Chlorhexidine is under-recognized as a cause of anaphylaxis and dentists should be aware of its potential for serious adverse effects. Dentists need to consider whether the washing out of a tooth socket with chlorhexidine solution should be avoided in the treatment of established dry socket. On current evidence the potential risks of using chlorhexidine as irrigation solution for treating an established dry socket appears to outweigh any known benefit. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Chlorhexidine has the potential to cause anaphylaxis in the dental surgery.

The efficacy of intra-alveolar 0.2% chlorhexidine gel on alveolar osteitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel in preventing alveolar osteitis following mandibular third molar extraction(s).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct and the references of identified articles were searched for relevant studies that met our eligibility criteria. Treatment effects were combined by meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software.

RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this meta-analysis. Compared to the control, 0.2% chlorhexidine gel reduced the risk of alveolar osteitis by 62% (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.53, P < 0.00001) following mandibular third molar extraction(s). The subgroup analysis results indicated that 0.2% chlorhexidine gel reduced the risk of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction(s) by 75% (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.11-0.58) and 56% (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.63) compared to no treatment and placebo, respectively. However, the occurrence of alveolar osteitis following mandibular third molar extraction(s) was not significantly different between 0.2% chlorhexidine gel and 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash (RR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.06-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The results showed that 0.2% chlorhexidine gel was effective in preventing alveolar osteitis after lower third molar extraction(s).

Survey of Spanish dentists on the prescription of antibiotics and antiseptics in surgery for impacted lower third molars

Background

This study explored the attitude of registered dentists in Biscay towards prescribing antibiotics and/or antiseptics to prevent potential infections after surgical extraction of completely bone-impacted third molars in otherwise healthy individuals, with no history of infection.

Material and Methods

We sent letters to 931 registered dentists in Biscay, with an explanation of the study objectives, description of a case of lower third molar impaction, including a panoramic radiograph, and a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked whether they would prescribe antibiotics and/or antiseptics, in the hypothetical case of lower third molar extraction surgery presented, and if so, when, what type, at what dose and how long for.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 261 dentists (28%), with a mean age of 44.3 years old (SD 11.05) and mean of 18.7 years working as a dentist (SD 9). A total of 216 dentists (82.7%) considered it necessary to prescribe antibiotics. Of these, 126 (58.3%) would prescribe amoxicillin and 74 (34.5%) amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, while 129 dentists (59%) would prescribe antibiotics both before and after surgery and 10 (4.6%) only after surgery. The most common doses were amoxicillin 500 mg or 750 mg every 8 hours, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 875/125 mg every 8 hours, in both cases for a mean of 7 days. Further, 74 dentists (28%) said they would use immediate post-extraction socket irrigation with chlorhexidine, while 211 (81%) would prescribe antiseptics in the postoperative period, of whom 97% recommended chlorhexidine. We did not find significant differences in the use of antibiotics or antiseptics by dentist age (ANOVA p=0.22 and p=0.53, respectively), or professional experience (ANOVA p=0.45 and p=0.62).

Conclusions

In our sample, the prophylactic prescription of antibiotics and/or chlorhexidine is widespread in clinical practice, in most cases amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid for a week, starting the treatment before surgery.

Key words:Extraction, lower third molar, survey, antibiotics, antiseptics.

Systemic review of dry socket: aetiology, treatment, and prevention

Our systemic review is to make a comprehensive review about the aetiology, treatment and the prevention of dry socket, the inclusion criteria were all the studies that discuss the dry socket and its etiology, treatment and prevention and exclusion criteria were all the studies that discuss the other complications of tooth extraction, the materials and methods used for this systemic review was to search in the Pub Medline database between 2008 to 2013, using specific words "dry socket, aetiology, treatment and prevention" and published in the English language, the articles were screened by abstract for relevance to aetiology, treatment and prevention of dry socket, 82 papers were identified in pub med but a total of 36 out of Publications were included in the final systemic review according to the specific keywords and materials mentioned above. The occurrence of dry socket in an everyday oral surgery or dental practice is unavoidable. The risk factors are smoking, surgical trauma, single extractions, age, sex, medical history, systemic disorder, extraction site, amount of anaesthesia, operator experience, antibiotics use prior to surgery, difficulty of the surgery and the previous surgical site infection in addition to oral Contraceptives, menstrual cycle and immediate postextraction socket irrigation with normal saline. The traditional options of treatment are directed toward palliative care, such as the irrigation of the surgical site, avoiding curetting the extraction socket, Packing with a zinc oxide- eugenol paste on iodoform gauze can be considered to relieve acute pain episodes, there is also new agents in the market can accelerate the healing of the socket such as PRGF and GECB. The prevention methods include avoiding smoking before and after surgery and a traumatic surgery, the use of antibiotics, such as, azithromycin, can be considered, the other preventive measures such as chlorhecidine rinse or gel can be effective in the reduction of dry socket incidence.

Effect of intra-alveolar placement of 0.2% chlorhexidine bioadhesive gel on the incidence of alveolar osteitis following the extraction of mandibular third molars. A double-blind randomized clinical trial

Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a common complication after third molar surgery. One of the most studied agents in its prevention is chlorhexidine (CHX), which has proved to be effective. Objectives: The aim of this randomized double-blind clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.2% bioadhesive chlorhexidine gel placed intra-alveolar in the prevention of AO after the extraction of mandibular third molars and to analyze the impact of risk factors such as smoking and oral contraceptives in the development of AO. Study Design: The study was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial performed in the Ambulatory Surgery Unit of Hospital Vall d’Hebron and was approved by the Ethics Committee. A total of 160 patients randomly received 0.2% bioadhesive gel (80 patients) or bioadhesive placebo (80 patients). Results: 0.2% bioadhesive chlorhexidine gel applied in the alveolus after third molar extraction reduced the incidence of dry socket by 22% compared to placebo with differences that were not statistically significant. Smoking and the use of oral contraceptives were not related to higher incidence of dry socket. Female patients and the difficulty of the surgery were associated with a higher incidence of AO with statistically significant differences. 0.2% bioadhesive chlorhexidine gel did not produce any of the side effects related to chlorhexidine rinses. Conclusions: A 22% reduction of the incidence of alveolar osteitis with the application of 0.2% bioadhesive chlorhexidine gel compared to placebo with differences that were not statistically significant was found in this clinical trial. The lack of adverse reactions and complications related to chlorhexidine gel supports its clinical use specially in simple extractions and adds some advantages compared to the rinses in terms of duration of the treatment and reduction of staining and taste disturbance.

Key words:Alveolar osteitis, dry socket, chlorhexidine bioadhesive gel, mandibular third molar surgery.

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.