Should removal of lower third molars be included in the pre-graduate curriculum for dental students? An evaluation of post-operative complications after student operations

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four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.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

Incidence of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar surgery. Can inflammatory cytokines be identified locally?

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the present study were to evaluate the relative incidence of alveolar osteitis (AO) after mandibular third molar surgery, post-operative findings and local expression of bone markers and cytokines.

STUDY DESIGN

In 445 patients, unilateral surgical third molars extractions were undertaken (584 teeth). Bone markers and cytokines were explored at the AO side and on the un-operated contralateral side and compared with the levels in samples from a control group of 18 persons without AO.

RESULTS

The relative incidence of AO was 4.6%. Patients (n = 27) with AO were invited to participate in the study and 21 (77.8%) did so. Patients with AO had 1-4 extra visits for treatment of AO, the mean follow-up time was 2.6 days for all patients. There were significantly higher levels of bone markers and cytokines in the AO site compared with the un-operated contralateral site, except for Epidermal growth factor (EGF). No significant difference in expression of bone markers and cytokines between the AO and control groups was found. Lower maximum inter-incisor opening (MIO) was correlated with increased Macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha. A negative correlation between patients' complaint of trismus and MIO was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative incidence of AO was low in our patient group treated with surgical removal of third molars. AO was more frequently seen in female patients. Treatment of AO required up to four extra visits. The study provides some information on the role of cytokines in AO; but further studies are required.

Alveolar Osteitis: A Review of Current Concepts

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present review was to explore the pathogenesis and etiology of alveolar osteitis (AO) to obtain a more intuitive understanding of the clinical prevention and management of the condition. The different treatment modalities were discussed through both the mechanistic understanding of AO and the evidence regarding the different modes of prevention and management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register online databases were used to complete an advanced search using the MeSH term "dry socket," generating 756 results.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies on the prevention of AO were included, with 66 studies included for review of the reported data overall. The information was categorized into incidence, etiology and pathogenesis, prevention, and management. The relevant background information and evidence for each category were summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the pathogenesis and etiology of AO has improved in recent years, which has been helpful for developing effective evidence-based treatment and prevention of the condition. Clinicians should be aware of the complexity and multifactorial nature of the etiology of AO and the current concepts regarding the prevention and treatment of AO.

The Graduating European Dentist-Domain III: Patient-Centred Care

This position paper outlines the areas of competence and learning outcomes of "The Graduating European Dentist" that specifically relate to patient-centred care. This approach is becoming increasingly prominent within the literature and within policy documents. Whilst working to an evidence base is critical, dentists must also be aware of the scientific basis that underpins the treatment they provide. The evaluation process, which supports treatment planning, also requires dentists to be able to listen, collate, and record pertinent information effectively. In addition, the ability to account for a patient's social, cultural and linguistic needs (cultural competence) will result in a practitioner who is able to treatment plan for patient-centred care.

The Graduating European Dentist: A New Undergraduate Curriculum Framework

With "The Graduating European Dentist", ADEE provides a new approach that reflects best academic practice for European undergraduate dental education. The new suite of documents sees increased emphasis on important curriculum components such as patient safety, working as a team and patient-centred care. There is also an increased emphasis on teaching excellence, student satisfaction and student preparedness and support. Guidance relating to methods of teaching and learning, and assessment (educational measurement), is also provided. It is anticipated that this new format will further increase accessibility and utility for educators, institutions, societies and regulators, across the sector.

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

Background

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

Material and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Audit of a 5-year radiographic protocol for assessment of mandibular third molars before surgical intervention

OBJECTIVES

To perform an audit of a three-step protocol for radiographic examination of mandibular third molars before surgery.

METHODS

1769 teeth underwent surgery. A standardized three-step radiographic protocol was followed: (1) panoramic imaging (PAN), (2) stereoscanography (SCAN) and (3) CBCT. If there was overprojection between the tooth and the canal in PAN, SCAN was performed. If the tooth was determined to be in close contact with the canal in SCAN, CBCT was performed. Close contact between the tooth and the canal was assessed in all images, and patient-reported sensory disturbances from the alveolar inferior nerve were recorded after surgery. The relation between the final radiographic examination and sensory disturbances was determined. Logistic regression analysis tested whether signs for a close contact in PAN/SCAN could predict no bony separation between the tooth and canal in CBCT.

RESULTS

46% of teeth underwent PAN, 31% underwent SCAN and 23% underwent CBCT as the final examination. 21% underwent all three radiographic examinations. 53/76% of teeth with close relation to the canal in PAN/SCAN showed no bony separation in CBCT; if there was close relation in PAN/SCAN, there was 1.6/4.3 times higher probability that no bony separation existed in CBCT. 16 cases of sensory disturbances were recorded: 4 operations were based on PAN, 8 on SCAN and 4 on CBCT.

CONCLUSIONS

The radiographic protocol was in general followed. SCAN was superior to PAN in predicting no bony separation between the tooth and the canal in CBCT, and there was no relation between sensory disturbances and radiographic method.

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.