Evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative infection after mandibular third molar extraction in young patients

Close follow-up instead of antibiotic therapy after mandibular third molar surgery: A clinical trial

Background

Prescribing antibiotics (AB) before or after third molar surgery is common among dentists and oral surgeons; however the effectiveness of AB therapy in reducing surgery complications is still contradictory.

Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate the healing process after mandibular third molar surgery without AB therapy and to assess the role of close follow-ups on patient's perspective.

Methods

This study is a semi-empirical, prospective study conducted on 79 healthy patients. After surgical extraction of the impacted or semi-erupted mandibular third molar, assessment of pain, swelling (intergonial width), infection, and sub-periosteal abscess was done during the 1-month follow-ups of patients.

Results

The mean difficulty level of surgeries performed in this study was moderate. A significant relationship was found between the pain intensity and the psychological impact of follow-ups (p < 0.05). No fever or sign of infection were seen in any patient. The amount of swelling was significantly related to the difficulty level of surgery (p = 0.001); however, no significant correlation was found between the amount of pain and the level of difficulty.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that in order to reduce the hazards of AB therapy, close follow-up of patients after surgery can be advised.

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.

Can Amoxicillin and Clavulanic Acid Impregnated Plaster of Paris Beads Serve as an Effective Alternative to Systemic Antibiotics for Third Molar Surgeries? A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

The present work was a pilot study undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid impregnated plaster of paris beads for prevention of infection of third molar extraction sockets.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, split mouth clinical trial done on 16 patients (32 sites) who required surgical extraction of mandibular third molars. Control arm patients were given Tab. amoxicillin 500 mg with clavulanic acid 125 mg (Tab. Klavimed 625 mg, Indomed, India), thrice daily for 3 days after extraction, whereas test arm patients received Antibiotic Impregnated Microbeads (AIM), containing Amoxicillin 500 mg and Clavulanic Acid 100 mg placed in situ in the extraction socket. The primary outcome parameter was infection and the secondary outcome parameters were pain, trismus, swelling and wound healing.

Results

None of the patients in either group had post operative infection. There was no significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups (1st day p = 0.41; 3rd day p = 0.38, 7th day p = 0.37). Both the groups were also similar with respect to swelling (p = 0.596, 0.146, 0.871, 0.820 on 1st, 3rd, 7th, 15th post-op day ,respectively).

Conclusion

Amoxycillin with clavulanic acid impregnated PoP beads appears to be as effective as oral 3 day amoxicillin with clavulanic acid regime for prevention of 3 M socket infection.

Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Children Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To establish the role of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) in children undergoing surgery. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of six databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Study Selection: Included studies (irrespective of design) compared outcomes in children undergoing surgery, aged 0 to 21 years who received SAP with those who did not, with SSI as an outcome, using the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions for SSI. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers applied eligibility criteria, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. Results: A total of six randomized control trials and 26 observational studies including 202,593 surgical procedures among 202,405 participants were included in the review. The pooled odds ratio of SSI was 1.20; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.58) comparing those receiving SAP with those not receiving SAP, with moderate heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ² = 0.246; χ² = 69.75; p < 0.001; I² = 57.0%). There was insufficient data on many factors known to be associated with SSI, such as cost, length of stay, re-admission, and re-operation; it was therefore not possible to perform subanalyses on these. Conclusions: This review and metanalysis did not find a preventive action of SAP against SSI, and our results suggest that SAP should not be used in surgical wound class (SWC) I procedures in children. However, considering the poor quality of included studies, the principal message of this study is in highlighting the absence of quality data to drive evidence-based decision-making in SSI prevention in children, and in advocating for more research in this field.

Incidence of Delayed Infections after Lower Third Molar Extraction

PURPOSE

This retrospective study aimed to verify that the onset of delayed infection after lower third molar extraction was influenced by the amount of distal space.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated 265 patients (age range 12-55 years), who had one or two mandibular third molars to be extracted. All 380 third molars were removed for orthodontic reasons, periodontal disease, or pericoronitis and were evaluated by the Pell and Gregory classification using the panoramic radiographs.

RESULTS

Delayed infection, characterized from purulent exudates from the alveolus and swelling, was reported in 21 extractions between 2 and 8 weeks after surgery. In 16 of the 21 cases of infection, a class III of Pell and Gregory was observed, and this anatomic condition evidenced an extremely reduced space distal to the second molar.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that the absence of distal space was significantly correlated with delayed infection. These data are important for proper examination of a patient because, in the case of class I or II of Pell and Gregory, a delayed infection was less likely to occur, while a class III of Pell and Gregory could indicate a greater likelihood of this type of infection.

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.

Comparison of the Postoperative Effects of Local Antibiotic versus Systemic Antibiotic with the Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin on Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Split-Mouth Study

The surgery of the impacted mandibular third molar is the most frequent procedure in dentistry. The prescription of systemic antibiotics after the third molar extraction is widespread among dentists, but this is still argumentative. This study is aimed at evaluating the postoperative effects of local antibiotic mixed with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and a postoperative systemic antibiotic prescribed for mandibular third molar surgery. The study included 75 patients divided into a control and 4 test groups (n = 15). In the control group, only PRF was placed into the extracted socket, and no antibiotic was prescribed. In the first and third groups, PRF was applied to the socket; penicillin and clindamycin were prescribed as oral medications, respectively. In the second and fourth groups, only PRF combined with penicillin and clindamycin was applied into the socket, respectively. The outcome variables were pain, swelling, analgesic intake, and trismus. These variables were also assessed based on the first, second, third, and seventh days following the operation. Unpaired Student's t-test and Mann–Whitney U test were used for analysis. There were significant differences in the total VAS pain scores between the control and group 3 (p < 0.05), groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.01), and group 4 (p < 0.001) in ascending order. For analgesic intake, there was no significant difference for group 1 (p > 0.05). However, there were statistical differences between the control group and groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.01) and group 4 (p < 0.001). Trismus and swelling did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05). This study showed that the effects of local and systemic antibiotics with the use of PRF reduced postoperative outcomes. Moreover, local antibiotics with PRF may be a viable method to avoid the possible side effects of systemic antibiotics.

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.

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.

Complications of Dentoalveolar Surgery

This article explores how to prevent and manage complications of dentoalveolar surgery. Many complications are avoidable. Surgical skills and knowledge of anatomy play an important role in prevention of complications. Prevention starts with detailed history and physical examination of the patient. Key to perioperative management of patients is risk assessment. Without a proper history and physical examination, the clinician is unable to assess the risk of performing surgery and anesthesia for each patient. Some illnesses and medications increase the risk of complications. The following complications are discussed: alveolar osteitis, displacement, fracture, hemorrhage, infection, nonhealing wound, oroantral communication, swelling, and trismus.

Non-impacted tooth extractions and antibiotic treatment: A RCT study

OBJECTIVES

A controlled, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate usefulness of antibiotics in preventing pain and complications after tooth extractions and benefits of probiotics in reducing gastro-intestinal symptoms associated with antibiotic therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 159 patients were enrolled in this trial. After tooth extractions, patients were allocated to one of the groups: group 1 received postoperatively amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; group 2 received the same antibiotic therapy with an adjunctive probiotic treatment; and group 3 received neither antibiotics nor probiotics. Follow-up visits were planned at 7, 14, and 21 days after tooth extractions (T1, T2, and T3), and parameters assessed were pain, presence of abscess, edema, fever, alveolitis, trismus, pain, difficulty in daily routine activities, and gastro-intestinal symptoms.

RESULTS

The number of patients reporting pain at T1 was significantly higher in the control group when compared to group 2 (p = .016), while no difference for pain intensity was observed between groups. No surgical site infection was observed in any of the groups. Intestinal symptoms seemed to be tackled by probiotic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain was the most important symptom in the control group. Antibiotics were not necessary after non-impacted tooth extractions, and probiotics can reduce gastro-intestinal symptoms associated with antibiotics.

Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.

RESULTS

The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.

FUTURE WORK

Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Third Molar Extraction: Systematic Review of Recent Data

The aim of this paper was to highlight the most widely antibiotic protocols applied to the dental field, especially in the surgical treatment of impacted wisdom teeth. Once these protocols were screened, all the possible advantages or disadvantages for each drug and each posology were recorded in this review. In recent years, the need to use these protocols has been debated in the literature. The data obtained by this review underlined how antibiotic protocols applied to oral surgery treatments only included surgeries performed on patients who did not present other systemic pathologies. The first literature review obtained 140 results, and then after the application of the inclusion criteria, 12 papers were selected. The results showed that the most commonly used protocol involved the use of penicillin and clavulanate, obtaining safe clinical and prophylactic results in the management of infections. This widely used protocol seems to guarantee high predictability and safety. The presented review highlights the current possibility of antibiotic resistance affecting patients due to drug misuse. Further clinical studies are required to state specific guidelines; however, oral surgeons involved in third molar surgery should evaluate the local and general health conditions of the patients before suggesting any drug measures for patients.

Bacteriocin Isolated from Lactobacillus Rhamnosus L34 Has Antibacterial Effects in a Rabbit Model of Infection After Mandible Fracture Fixation

BACKGROUND Rigid internal fixation (RIF) technology is a recently developed fracture fixation technique in which use of specific antibiotics before and after the operation and timely treatment of local infections is necessary. MATERIAL AND METHODS The bacteriocins were isolated from Lactobacillus rhamnosus L34. Twenty-four New Zealand White female rabbits were divided into 2 groups: bacteriocins and control group. After mandible fracture fixation, the rabbits were infected with S. aureus and subsequently injected with either bacteriocins or saline. The biofilm samples were harvested from rabbits euthanized on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th days and observed using a fluorescence microscope. Blood samples were collected at 1 h, 12 h, 1 day, 3 days, and 5 days after the injection of either bacteriocin or saline to test the level of C-reactive protein and TNF-α. RESULTS Significant differences in the biofilm formation were evident between the bacteriocins and saline treatment group on days 1, 3, and 5. Moreover, the serum levels of TNF-α and CRP after treatment with bacteriocins were significantly lower than in controls. CONCLUSIONS Use of bacteriocins isolated from Lactobacillus rhamnosus L34 may be a promising way to control infections of mandible fracture after internal fixation in vivo.

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.

Delayed onset infections after lower third molar germectomy could be related to the space distal to the second molar

The onset of delayed infection after lower third molar germectomy is influenced by the amount of distal space. This retrospective study aimed to determine whether the incidence of delayed onset infection is related to the space distal to the second molar. The ratio between the distal space and the crown width, measured according to the Ganss protocol on panoramic radiographs, was obtained for 218 surgical germectomies performed for orthodontic reasons in 134 patients. A delayed onset infection occurred following 20 germectomies at between 2 and 8 weeks after surgery; purulent exudates from the alveolus and swelling were present. In 16 of the 20 cases of infection, a Ganss ratio of <0.5 showed the almost complete absence of space distal to the second molar. This study found that the distal space was significantly and inversely correlated with delayed onset infection (P=0.004). From a clinical point of view, it is important for the surgeon to be aware that a higher Ganss ratio may indicate that a delayed onset infection is less likely to occur and that a lower Ganss ratio could indicate a greater likelihood of this type of infection, so that the patient can be properly informed.

Surgical Site Infections Following Bimaxillary Orthognathic, Osseous Genioplasty, and Intranasal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Frequency estimates of surgical site infection (SSI) after orthognathic surgery vary considerably. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and site of SSIs and associated risk factors after bimaxillary orthognathic, osseous genioplasty, and intranasal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors executed a retrospective cohort study of patients with a bimaxillary developmental dentofacial deformity (DFD) and symptomatic chronic obstructive nasal breathing. All patients underwent at a minimum Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomies (SROs), septoplasty, inferior turbinate reduction, and osseous genioplasty. The primary outcome variable studied was the incidence and site of SSI. Predictor variables were type and extent of prophylactic antibiotic used, demographic (age and gender), and anatomic (pattern of DFD, surgical site, and presence of third molar).

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Their average age at surgery was 25 years (range, 13 to 63 yr) and there were 134 female patients (51%). The major presenting patterns of DFD included long face (30%) and maxillary deficiency (25%). Forty percent of patients undergoing an SRO and 47% of those undergoing a Le Fort I osteotomy underwent simultaneous removal of a third molar. Ninety percent of patients received cefazolin or cephalexin antibiotics. Overall, 5 of 1,048 (0.5%) osteotomy sites sustained an infection, including 1 chin and 4 ramus SSIs. There were no delays in bone healing. Fixation hardware removal was not required in any patient who developed an infection. Two of the 25 patients (8%) given clindamycin prophylaxis developed an SSI, whereas 3 of 237 patients (1%) receiving cefazolin did. Three of the 4 patients who developed an SRO SSI underwent simultaneous removal of an erupted or partially erupted mandibular third molar (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the incidence of SSI was limited to 1% of patients who were given cefazolin or cephalexin extended for 5 days. The removal of an erupted or partially erupted mandibular third molar in conjunction with an SRO was associated with risk of SSI, but the incidence remains low.

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.

Postoperative socket irrigation with drinking tap water reduces the risk of inflammatory complications following surgical removal of third molars: a multicenter randomized trial

Objectives

The primary aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative irrigation of the socket with drinking tap water on inflammatory complications following lower third molar removal.

Material and methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was carried out from June 2013 to June 2014. In one arm of the study, patients were instructed to irrigate the tooth socket and surgical site with a Monoject® Curved 412 Tip Syringe (Tyco/healthcare-Kendall, Mansfield, MA, USA) with tap water. In a second arm of the study, the standard postoperative instructions did not include irrigation instructions. The incidences of alveolar osteitis and wound infection were recorded for each group and analyzed by the Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 280 patients with 333 mandibular third molars were analyzed. According to the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, inflammatory complications occurred in 18 cases in the Monoject® group (11.4 %) compared to 34 cases (19.1 %) in the control group (p = 0.04). These complications were associated with significant worse outcomes regarding quality of life, pain, and trismus and caused significantly more missed days of work or study. Female gender, age >26, bone removal, deep impacted third molars, less experienced surgeons, and a high amount of debris at the surgical site were also identified as risk factors for developing inflammatory complications following lower third molar removal.

Conclusion

Irrigation of the surgical site with drinking tap water using a curved syringe following removal of third molars is effective in reducing the risk of inflammatory complications.

Clinical relevance

Water is a very accessible, cost-effective irrigant without side effects and the results from this study have proven that it can be used to reduce the risk of inflammatory complications and associated morbidity following lower third molar removal.

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.

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.

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative inflammatory complications in Chinese patients having impacted mandibular third molars removed: a split-mouth, double-blind, self-controlled, clinical trial

We investigated the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative inflammatory complications after operations for impacted mandibular third molars in Chinese patients. A total of 207 patients had their bilateral third molars removed in a split-mouth, double-blind, self-controlled, clinical trial in two visits. For one side amoxicillin (or clindamycin) was given (antibiotic group) from one hour before operation until 3 days postoperatively. For the other side a placebo was given (placebo group) at the same time. The outcome, including alveolar osteitis, surgical wound infection, prebuccal infection, and infection of the anterior isthmus of fauces, was assessed 2 and 10 days postoperatively. A total of 192 patients completed the study, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of inflammatory complications. In the treatment group, there were 4 cases of alveolar osteitis (2%), 2 infections of the wound (1%), and 14 other reactions (gastrointestinal (n=4), bleeding (n=2), ulcer (n=2), and fever (n=6)). In the placebo group, there were 6 cases of alveolar osteitis (3%), 2 wound infections (1%), and 22 other reactions (bleeding (n=6), ulcer (n=2) and fever (n=14)). There was no significant difference in the extraction time and postoperative reactions, except the pain score on day 10 (p=0.005). Prophylactic amoxicillin (or clindamycin) is not effective for the prevention or reduction of postoperative inflammatory complications after the removal of impacted mandibular third molars in Chinese patients.

Removal of an upper third molar from the maxillary sinus

The maxillary sinus or antrum is the largest of the paranasal sinuses. It is located in the maxillary bone and has a proximity to the apexes of upper molars and premolars, which allows it to form a direct link between the sinus and the oral cavity. Dislocation of a foreign body or tooth to the interior of a paranasal sinus is a situation that can occur as a result of car accidents, firearm attacks, or iatrogenic in surgical procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to know how to treat this kind of situation. This study's objective is to report the case of a 23-year-old female patient, leucoderma, who sought treatment from the Surgical Unit at the Dental Faculty of the Federal University of Sergipe. She had a history of pain and edema in the right side of the genian region and two failed attempts at removing dental unit (DU) 18. The extraoral clinical exam revealed intense edema of the left hemiface with signs of infection, excoriation of the labial commissure, hematoma, a body temperature of 39°C, and a limited ability to open her mouth. The patient was medicated and treated surgically. The tooth was removed from the maxillary sinus with caution, as should have been done initially.

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.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in dentistry

Use of antibiotics both in humans and animals runs along with effects that can contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Although several available guidelines for antibiotic treatment have been published to date, clinical practice in dentistry and particularly in oral surgery is not free from controversies regarding antibiotic prophylaxis. Antibiotic coverage to prevent infectious endocarditis, joint prostheses infections or local infections requires a careful evaluation of the patient condition, associated risks and other aspects that could influence the decision. It is of great relevancy for oral surgeons and for dentists in general to know exactly what they are up against. Here we review the literature regarding prophylactic use of antimicrobials in dentistry.

Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the discomfort and surgical outcomes of a piezosurgery device with those of rotatory instruments in lower third molar extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A split-mouth, randomized, unblinded clinical study was designed; the 2 molars had to have the same extraction difficulty score. The test side was extracted using a piezosurgery technique and the control side was extracted using a conventional handpiece. The primary endpoint was patient discomfort evaluated with the Postoperative Symptom Severity (PoSSe) scale, which was administered to each patient; secondary endpoints were pain, trismus, swelling, and surgical time evaluation. Paired-samples t test and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used to compare outcomes within patients.

RESULTS

Ten consecutive patients (6 female, 4 male; mean age, 22.4 ± 2.3 yr) were recruited. The total score on the PoSSe scale was significantly lower for piezosurgery compared with the conventional rotating handpiece (24.7 ± 10.3 vs 36.0 ± 7.6; t = -4.27; P = .002). Moreover, postoperative swelling 1 week after surgery was significantly lower for piezosurgery than for the conventional rotating handpiece (2.75 ± 0.23 vs 3.1 ± 0.39 cm; t = -2.63; P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Piezosurgery was associated with less postoperative discomfort and yielded better results for swelling. Piezosurgery seems to be a good technique in daily surgical practice, especially if applied in the critical steps in which safety and respect for soft tissue, bone, and nerves are necessary.

Effects of perioperatively administered dexamethasone on surgical wound healing in patients undergoing surgery for zygomatic fracture: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to clarify the occurrence of disturbance in surgical wound healing (DSWH) after surgery of zygomatic complex (ZC) fractures and to determine whether perioperatively applied dexamethasone increases the risk for DSWH.

STUDY DESIGN

Of 64 patients who were included in a single-blind prospective trial, 33 perioperatively received a total dose of 10 mg or 30 mg of dexamethasone. The remaining 31 patients served as controls.

RESULTS

DSWH occurred in 9 patients (14.1%). Occurrence of DSWH was 24.4% in patients who received dexamethasone and 3.2% in controls. The association between DSWH and dexamethasone was significant (P = .016). Intraoral approach also was associated with DSWH significantly (P = .042). No association emerged between DSWH and age, gender, time span from accident to surgery, or duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

DSWH occurred significantly more frequently in patients who received perioperative dexamethasone. Because of increased risk of DSWH, perioperative dexamethasone cannot be recommended in open reduction and fixation of ZC fractures.

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.

What strategies are helpful in the operative management of third molars?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review was to investigate and report strategies that might improve patient recovery after third molar (M3) surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a literature review on various topics to identify the methods of improving outcomes after M3 removal. Numerous topics were reviewed, including patient age, flap design, effect of smoking, use of antibacterial rinses, pre-emptive analgesia, and the role of antibiotics and corticosteroids in recovery.

RESULTS

Increased patient age appears to be a factor in a higher complication rate, but the literature is sparse. The results of studies on flap design are contradictory, but there is no difference in long-term periodontal health. Systematic reviews clearly show that longer periods of smoking cessation decrease surgical complications, but few studies have addressed M3 surgery. Likewise, the role of pre-emptive analgesia, although beneficial in a general surgical setting, has not been studied thoroughly with regard to M3 surgery. The use of chlorhexidine rinses to prevent alveolar osteitis and surgical site infection has been studied extensively, but meta-analyses have not convincingly proved this effect. The evidence is convincing that antibiotics decrease alveolar osteitis and surgical site infection. Similarly, it is clear that corticosteroids decrease postoperative trismus and edema; however, the role of steroids in decreasing pain is not proved.

CONCLUSION

This review found various factors associated with improving recovery and minimizing complications in M3 surgery.

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.

Strategies used to inhibit postoperative swelling following removal of impacted lower third molar

Postoperative swelling following different surgical strategies is an area of great interest. The main part of literature on the topic deals with swelling after extraction of low impacted third molar. In this review, we have analyzed publications of the last 20 years with a pubmed search using the following key words: impacted third molar, swelling third molar, wisdom tooth, edema jaw, corticosteroids and extraction third molar, antibiotic prophylaxis and tooth extraction. Attention has often been focused on corticosteroid therapy administered by diverse routes (orally, IV, IM, topically) and at different time schedules (before or after surgery or both). This investigation revealed how the use of different molecules and dosages makes the obtained results hardly comparable. Similar conclusions can be drawn from studies aimed at evaluating the efficacy of antibiotic therapy administered either before or after surgery. A complete review has also to take into account different surgical strategies used including various flaps, no traumatic osteothomy, and primary or secondary closure. The use of pharmacological therapy and application of an ice pack is critical in the postoperative period and has always provided positive results. However, even if it is difficult to come to definite conclusions, due to the variability of the design of studies analyzed, the postoperative discomfort identified with edema, pain and trismus following wisdom tooth removal is influenced by various factors such as the difficulty of the surgical procedure involved, age and gender of the patient, and experience of the surgeon. The pharmacological therapy when performed with corticosteroids seems to improve control of the postoperative swelling related with this kind of surgeries.

Amoxicillin and Clavulanic Acid Vs Ceftazidime in the Surgical Extraction of Impacted Third Molar: A Comparative Study

The objective of this work is to compare the effectiveness and the side effects of two different drugs, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid vs ceftazidime, used as antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical extraction of third molars and to demonstrate that the use of second choice antibiotic has no significant advantages in comparison with a first choice antibiotic. One hundred and seven patients with impacted third molar were selected and divided into two groups: amoxicillin and clavulanic acid were administered to group 1 and ceftazidime to group 2 for five days after surgery and we observed the postoperative period. The statistical analysis showed no differences between the two groups which lead to the conclusion that there is no indication to routinely administrate intramuscular second-choice antibiotic prophylactic therapy (ceftazidime) in case of surgical extraction of the third molar.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a review

OBJECTIVE

Controversy exists about the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing complications after lower third molar surgery. For evidence-based recommendation, a review was performed on clinical trials reporting the use of antibiotic prophylaxis compared with no treatment or placebo with "infection" as outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Useful studies were identified using Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline (1966-January 2011) and references in retrieved reports and review articles. Twenty-three eligible studies were identified and reviewed by independent investigators using 2 quality assessment scales.

RESULTS

The review procedure revealed 15 "low-quality" and 8 "high-quality" articles, with major differences in treatment modalities and heterogeneity of design.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence supporting the efficacy of commonly used antibiotics in preventing complications after lower third molar removal. Well designed and well reported high-quality randomized trials considering known risk factors and taking clinical outcomes into account are needed to reach final consensus on the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to allow evidence-based recommendations.

How can we as dentists minimize our contribution to the problem of antibiotic resistance?

More than 30 million pounds of antibiotics are used in the United States per year, more than 90% for nontherapeutic purposes in animals. Environmental contamination by trace amounts of antibiotics and highly resistant bacteria can lead to resistant infections in humans. Oral and maxillofacial infections are largely mediated by biofilms, which are resistant to antibiotics. Primary treatment is surgical debridement, removal of the cause of the infection, and drainage of pus. Current best practices indicate the use of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy to surgery only when regional, distant, or systemic spread of the infection is a significant risk.

Efficacy of amoxicillin treatment in preventing postoperative complications in patients undergoing third molar surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the occurrence of postoperative complications in patients receiving either pre- or postoperative amoxicillin versus placebo after third molar surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed in 123 patients undergoing third molar surgery. The patients were randomized to 3 groups, according to the treatment regimen: preoperative amoxicillin, postoperative amoxicillin, and placebo. Both surgeon and patients were unaware of the treatment assignment. The clinical outcomes, including pain, wound infection, trismus, temperature, intra- and extraoral swelling, dysphagia, side effects, and postoperative complications, were assessed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of pain, wound infection, temperature, trismus, and dysphagia between the groups receiving amoxicillin versus placebo. Suture dehiscence and infection of 5 sockets were only found in the placebo group. No cases of alveolitis were observed in the 3 groups studied. No significant differences in swelling were found among the different groups. No statistically significant differences in side effects were found between the groups. The efficacy was greatest in the group receiving postoperative amoxicillin compared with the group receiving a prophylactic preoperative dose.

CONCLUSION

Amoxicillin administered pre- or postoperatively demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo in preventing postoperative complications in patients undergoing third molar surgery. The best results were obtained using the postoperative protocol.