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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Routine and complicated extractions: avoiding and managing complications

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

Antibiotics or no antibiotics: reflections on Ren and Malmstrom

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Clinical study on the closure of extraction wounds of partially soft tissue-impacted mandibular third molars

OBJECTIVE

When a mandibular third molar is partially impacted in the soft tissue, it must be determined whether the extraction wound should be left partially open or completely closed. We hypothesize that a blood clot preserving a surgical wound with easily cleanable surfaces by primary closure and drain application would postoperatively minimize dry socket and/or alveolitis development.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Twenty patients requiring bilateral extraction of partially soft tissue-impacted mandibular third molars in a vertical position were included in the study. The existence of dry sockets, alveolitis, pain, facial swelling, and trismus were evaluated on the second, fifth, and seventh days of the postoperative period.

RESULTS

On the second day, pain, trismus, and swelling were higher in the drained group; however, pain reduced progressively in the drained group over time. There were no cases of dry sockets or alveolitis except for a single patient on the seventh day in the drained group over the 7-day study period. On the other hand, in the secondary closure group, the number of dry sockets was 8 (40%) on the second day. The number of alveolitis was 10 (50%) on the fifth day and 4 (20%) on the seventh day.

CONCLUSION

Closed healing by drain insertion after removal of partially soft tissue-impacted third molars produces less frequent postoperative dry sockets and/or alveolitis development than occurs with open healing of the surgical wound. In cases with a risk of alveolitis development (lack of oral hygiene, immunocompromised patients, etc), it can be avoided with the "kiddle effect" and related undesired complications by implementing closed healing with drain insertion.

[Alveolitis: review of the literature]

Alveolitis are infectious complications following the dental extraction. They appear under two forms: dry, characterized by a painful syndrome and uninhabited alveolus, and suppurative, which becomes identified by provoked pain and alveolus filled. Their etiopathogenesis remain a subject of interrogation because of the rarity of studies concerning this complication. Nevertheless, treatment is mainly favorable by a sedation of the pain and the startup of a physiological healing. From this article, we are going to review their clinical forms, their etiology as well as the followed treatment.

Does chlorhexidine prevent dry socket?

DATA SOURCES

The BBO (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia), Biomed Central, Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Open-J-Gate, OpenSIGLE, PubMed, Sabinet and Science-Direct databases were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were selected for review from the search results on the basis of their compliance with the broad inclusion criteria: relevant to the review question; and prospective two-arm (or more) clinical study. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of AO reported at the patient level.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers (VY and SM) independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the accepted articles. Individual dichotomous datasets for the control and test group were extracted from each article. Where possible, missing data were calculated from information given in the text or tables. In addition, authors were contacted in order to obtain missing information. Datasets were assessed for their clinical and methodological heterogeneity following Cochrane guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted with homogeneous datasets. Publication bias was assessed by use of a funnel plot and Egger's regression.

RESULTS

Ten randomised trials were included; almost all involved the removal of third molars. Only two of six identified application protocols (single application of chlorhexidine 0.2% gel or multiple application of 0.12% rinse versus placebo) were found to significantly decrease the incidence of AO.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this review, only two of six identified application protocols were found to significantly decrease the incidence of AO. The evidence for both protocols is weak and may be challenged on the grounds of high risk of selection, detection/performance and attrition bias. This systematic review could not identify sufficient evidence supporting the use of chlorhexidine for the prevention of AO. Chlorhexidine seems not to cause any significantly higher adverse reactions than placebo. Future high-quality randomised control trials are needed to provide conclusive evidence on this topic.

The management of dry socket/alveolar osteitis

Dry socket/alveolar osteitis is a very debilitating, severely painful but relatively common complication following dental extractions. Its incidence is approximately 3% for all routine extractions and can reach over 30% for impacted mandibular third molars. A number of methods have been suggested in the literature as to how this condition may be prevented and managed. Most of these suggestions are empirical and not evidence based. This paper is a review of the literature on dry socket. The results of an audit carried out in the Dublin Dental School and Hospital are also presented and a suggestion is made as to how best this painful condition may be managed. Our audit showed that a wide range of treatments are being used in the treatment of dry socket: rinsing of the socket with chlorhexidine (74%) or saline (26%); placement of a non-resorbable obtundant dressing (56%); and, instruction in home rinsing of the socket with chlorhexidine (44%). This condition is one of the most examined topics in dentistry and is currently being researched in the Dublin Dental School and Hospital. Over the years little progress has been made in establishing firm conclusions as to how best dry socket should be managed. Our recommendations are based on a review of the literature, being the best available evidence on which to base our clinical practice.

A consensus conference on management of the lower third molar. Italian Society of Odontostomatological Surgery

During the first Congress of the Italian University Schools of Oral Surgery, held in Rome on 18-20th February, 2010, a task force was convened by the Italian Society of Odontostomatological Surgery (SIdCO) to summarize the data collected from the current literature on selected aspects relating to the mandibular third molar and its removal. The task of the Conference Participants was to review and analyze the pertinent literature and to elaborate conclusive recommendations for the management of the lower third molar. The statements made and the recommendations presented represent the consensus of the Conference, which can be considered the official statement of the SIdCO.

The cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib and alveolar osteitis

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical experience, in a pilot study, of the use of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib, pre-emptively, to control pain in patients after surgical extraction of a mandibular molar tooth.

PATIENT AND METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective clinical trial was conducted over an eight-month period. Participants were randomly allocated to receive a standard oral dose of 200 mg celecoxib, 400 mg ibuprofen, or a placebo containing lactose, pre-emptively, one hour before surgery. Each patient was prescribed amoxycillin 500 mg three times per day postoperatively for seven days. The participants were given standardised participant information sheets, and written informed consent was subsequently obtained from the participants prior to the commencement of the study.

RESULTS

The results showed that 13% of the patients who had ibuprofen had severe pain two to three days postoperatively. This was diagnosed as alveolar osteitis, which is in line with the universally accepted outcome for the surgical extraction of mandibular molar teeth. Statistical analysis (Chi-square test) confirmed that the ibuprufen group had a significantly higher alveolar osteitis incidence than the celecoxib group (p < or = 0.05) and the placebo group (p < or = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported study to demonstrate that the use of celecoxib resulted in a significant decrease in the occurrence of alveolar osteitis.

Can flap design influence the incidence of alveolar osteitis following removal of impacted mandibular third molars?

This study sought to evaluate the influence of flap design (that is, modified triangular flap or buccal envelope flap) on alveolar osteitis (AO) and on healing following the surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. A double-blind split-mouth clinical trial examined 17 patients who were candidates for extraction of a bilaterally impacted mandibular third molar with the same difficulty index; a modified triangular flap was placed on one side and a buccal envelope flap (control) was placed on the other side. AO and healing were assessed at three and seven days after surgery. Data were analyzed with the McNemar and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The modified triangular flap decreased the incidence of AO and expedited healing at seven days postsurgery. In addition, statistically significant differences were observed in terms of both AO and postoperative healing.

Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket: effectiveness of different dosage forms and regimens

Dry socket (DS) is a potential postoperative complication of dental extractions. It is clinically diagnosed by the presence of a denuded socket secondary to premature loss of the blood clot, and manifests as slight discomfort for the patient, followed by sudden worsening with intense or lancing pain. Since the underlying etiology is not clear, the best treatment is prevention. Chlorhexidine (CHX) is an antiseptic that acts upon the bacteria of the oral cavity, and is widely used in dental practice.

OBJECTIVES

A metaanalysis is made of the different CHX treatment regimens used for the prevention of DS, with the proposal of a management protocol designed to maximize the efficacy of such treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Literature searches were made in the PubMed Medline, Cochrane and ISI Web of Knowledge databases, crossing the terms: alveolar osteitis, dry socket and chlorhexidine. The search was limited to randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials.

RESULTS

Twelve clinical trials using CHX in rinse or gel form at doses of 0.12% or 0.2% with different administration regimens for the prevention of DS were identified.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the existing medical literature, it can be concluded that 0.2% CHX gel, applied every 12 hours for 7 days after extraction is the best available option for the prevention of DS. However, this is also the most expensive option, and since CHX is not subsidized by the Spanish public healthcare system, it occasionally may be more advisable to use the 0.12% rinse with the same dosing regimen.

[Lincomycin applied to the alveolus on TCP carrier and its effect on wound healing after surgical extraction of a third molar]

INTRODUCTION

The dental surgeon is often confronted by complications particularly after extraction ofunerupted lower third molars. The most common complication is alveolar periostitis. The healing process after extraction is accompanied by physiologic atrophy of the alveolus involving on the average 30% of bone tissue. Beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) is a synthetic material used in medicine to fill up bone defects caused by pathologic processes. The properties of TCP are appropriate for the material to be used as a carrier for drugs, in particular antibiotics. This study was undertaken to determine whether lincomycin applied to the alveolus on TCP carrier can be used to accelerate wound healing and reduce inflammation after surgical extraction of a third molar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 80 patients (males and females between the age of 18 and 50 years) who underwent extraction of a third molar at the Department of Dental Surgery, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin. Surgical difficulty in the patients according to the Pederson scale corresponded to grade 2 or 3 (medium or high difficulty). The study group consisted of 40 patients who received lincomycin on TCP. Beta-tricalcium phosphate (300-700 microm pores) obtained from the Department of Technology of Ceramics and Refractories, AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow, was soaked with 500 mg of lincomycin in solution and applied to the dental alveolus after tooth extraction. The alveolus was tightly sutured. The control group comprised 40 patients not treated with lincomycin. The patients reappeared for examination on the first, third, and seventh day after surgery. Attention during follow-up was directed to alveolar periostitis, pain, and trismus. Pain intensity was assessed with the 10-degree Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

We analyzed the subjective pain intensity reported during follow-up by the patients. In the study group, 20 patients reported no pain 24 hours after extraction. On the third day after surgery, alveolar periostitis was present in 15% of patients in the study group and 75% of patients in the control group. On the last day of follow-up, periostitis was present in only 2.5% of patients in the study group as opposed to 45% of patients in the control group. The differences were statistically significant (chi-square 36.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Lincomycin on TCP can be used to prevent alveolar periostitis. (2) Lincomycin on TCP reduces complications in the form of pain and trismus. (3) Beta-tricalcium phosphate prevents atrophy of the alveolar process.

Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

PURPOSE

We conducted a synthetic quantitative review of the published clinical trials on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome variables included alveolar osteitis (AO) and surgical wound infection. The extracted data were analyzed using a meta-analytical program with a random-effect model. Number needed to treat (NnT) was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 2,932 patients randomized in 16 clinical trials reported AO as an outcome. AO occurred in 84 of 1,350 patients in the treatment group, a frequency of 6.2%; and in 228 of 1,582 patients in the control group, a frequency of 14.4%. Systemic antibiotic therapy was effective in reducing the risk of AO (odds ratio [OR], 2.175) with an NnT of 13. A total of 2,396 patients randomized in 12 clinical trials reported wound infection as an outcome. Wound infection occurred in 44 of 1,110 patients in the treatment group, a frequency of 4%; and in 78 of 1,286 patients in the control group, a frequency of 6.1%. Systemic antibiotic therapy was effective in reducing the risk of wound infection (OR, 1.794) with an NnT of 25. Antibiotics reduced the risk of AO and wound infection only when first dose was given before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic antibiotics given before the surgery were effective in reducing the frequencies of AO and wound infection after third molar surgery.

Inhibition of Alveolar Osteitis in Mandibular Tooth Extraction Sites Using Platelet-Rich Plasma

Alveolar osteitis (AO), also known as dry socket, continues to be a complication of tooth removal. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can be used to accelerate both soft and hard tissue healing. This paper is a retrospective review of the benefits of PRP in AO prevention. PRP was obtained from patients for use in the postremoval alveolar sockets of mandibular molar extraction sites. Statistical analysis of 904 extraction sites with and without PRP use was examined. PRP significantly reduced the incidence of AO by 62.1%, from 9.57% in patients not receiving PRP to 3.63% in patients who received PRP (P = .00043). PRP use had benefits in all subpopulations. The odds of AO occurring in patients not receiving PRP treatment following tooth extraction was 2.81 times greater than in patients receiving PRP treatment immediately following tooth extraction. Four statistically significant risk factors for AO were identified: complete impaction, oral contraceptive use, bruxism, and failure to administer PRP. The application of PRP can significantly reduce the incidence of AO even in patients with risk factors for AO, such as removal of impacted teeth, bruxism, and oral contraceptive use. PRP may be of benefit because it helps initiate clot formation, provides growth factors to facilitate the healing process, and contains concentrated white blood cells to inhibit infection. The use of PRP following tooth extraction is a simple, cost-effective technique that can be used to decrease the incidence of AO and therefore decrease postoperative pain.

Single-dose and multi-dose clindamycin therapy fails to demonstrate efficacy in preventing infectious and inflammatory complications in third molar surgery

The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of single- and multi-dose (5-day) clindamycin therapy for the prevention of inflammatory complications in patients undergoing lower third molar surgical extraction with bone removal. Patients who qualified for the prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial were randomly divided into three groups: (1) single dose of oral clindamycin administered preoperatively (single-dose group); (2) clindamycin administered preoperatively with continued therapy for 5 days (5-day group); and (3) a placebo group. The following parameters were evaluated on the first, second and seventh days postsurgery: trismus, facial swelling, body temperature, lymphadenopathy, alveolar osteitis and subjective pain sensations. There were 86 patients (31 in the single-dose group, 28 in the 5-day group and 27 in the placebo group) enrolled in the study. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative inflammatory complications in patients during the first and second days postsurgery. A statistically significant variation in body temperature was reported on the seventh day. Analysis of the postoperative analgesic intake did not show statistically significant differences between examined groups. Clindamycin applied in a single preoperative dose of 600 mg with or without subsequent 5-day therapy does not demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis for postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery.

Prevention of alveolar osteitis with azithromycin in women according to use of tobacco and oral contraceptives

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of azithromycin in the prevention of post-extraction alveolar osteitis (dry socket) in women according to their use of tobacco and oral contraceptives.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

A clinical trial was conducted in 400 women who underwent tooth extraction, stratified into 4 risk groups according to their use of tobacco (yes/no) and oral contraceptives (yes/no). Each stratum (n = 100) was randomly divided into 2 groups: a study group that received azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 3 days after extraction and a control group that received physiologic saline 3 times daily from 24 hours after extraction for 7 days.

RESULTS

Azithromycin was significantly superior to conventional postextraction treatment with physiologic saline. There were no significant interactions with the use of either tobacco or oral contraceptives, and these variables had no confounding effects.

CONCLUSION

Azithromycin is a safe and efficacious treatment for the prevention of dry socket in women.

Does prophylactic administration of systemic antibiotics prevent postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery?

PURPOSE

To estimate and compare the frequencies of inflammatory complications after third molar (M3) surgery in subjects receiving intravenous prophylactic antibiotics or saline placebo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, the investigators enrolled a sample composed of subjects who required extraction of at least 1 impacted M3 and requested intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. The predictor variable was treatment group classified as active treatment (penicillin or clindamycin for penicillin-allergic subjects) or placebo (0.9% saline). Study medications were randomly assigned. Both surgeon and subject were blinded to treatment assignment. The medication was administered intravenously prior to any incision. The outcome variable was postoperative inflammatory complication classified as present or absent and included alveolar osteitis (AO) or surgical site infection (SSI). Other variables were demographic, anatomic, or operative. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed. Statistical significance was set at P < or = .05, single-tailed test of hypothesis.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 118 subjects (n = 59 per study group). In the active treatment group, there were no postoperative inflammatory complications. In the placebo group, 5 subjects (8.5%) were diagnosed with SSI, (P = .03). No subject met the case definition for AO. All SSIs were associated with the removal of partial bony or full bony impacted mandibular M3s.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of third molar removal, these results suggest that the use of intravenous antibiotics administered prophylactically decrease the frequency of SSIs. The authors cannot comment on the efficacy of intravenous antibiotics in comparison to other antibacterial treatment regimens, eg chlorhexidine mouthrinse or intrasocket antibiotics.

Effect estimates and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials about prevention of alveolar osteitis following tooth extraction: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the scientific evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCT) about prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO).

STUDY DESIGN

Literature searches were conducted to locate RCTs about prevention of AO. The RCTs were scrutinized for methodological details and categorized according to the preventive intervention studied. Data were analyzed in relation to the frequency of AO. Absolute risk reductions (ARR), and numbers needed to treat were calculated with 95% confidence limits.

RESULTS

There was a wide variation in the design and quality of the RCTs (N = 32). The greatest risk reduction for AO was seen for local treatment with tetracycline (ARR, 12%-31%). For a majority of the preventive interventions, the evidence was absent or inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Local treatment with tetracycline, and also 0.12% chlorhexidine rinsing preoperatively and 7 days postoperatively, seem to have significant and clinically relevant preventive effect on AO following surgical removal of lower third molars.

Comparison of two chlorhexidine rinse protocols on the incidence of alveolar osteitis following the surgical removal of impacted third molars

PRINCIPLES

Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is the most common complication following the extraction of permanent teeth. This study was undertaken to compare the effect of two chlorhexidine rinse protocols on the incidence of alveolar osteitis in patients undergoing surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar teeth.

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted among 99 subjects. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Subjects were instructed to rinse twice daily with 15 ml of chlorhexidine rinse 30 seconds for one week before and one week after surgery (group I) or one week after surgery (group II). Postoperatively, all patients were instructed to return in one week or sooner if bothersome pain increased or persisted. Data were collected regarding abnormal healing, presence of necrotic tissue, exposed bone, and absence of clot.

RESULTS

The results indicated group I and group II were not statistically significant different in the reduction of alveolar osteitis.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce alveolar osteitis after impacted third molar surgery, it was observed use of postoperative chlorhexidine rinse was adequate. The postoperative use of chlorhexidine is more feasible than both preoperative and postoperative use.

Influence of Surgicel gauze on the incidence of dry socket after wisdom tooth extraction

At a hospital in Damman, Saudi Arabia, it was noticed that many patients had developed dry socket after surgical removal of wisdom teeth. To enhance haemostasis, Surgicel (oxidized cellulose) gauze was sometimes used in the tooth socket in patients who were operated under general anaesthesia. An analysis was made of the records of 104 lower wisdom teeth removed surgically from 86 patients. The incidence of dry socket in the 20 Surgicel-treated teeth was 25.0%, compared with 6.0% among the 84 non-Surgicel-treated teeth. The use of Surgicel in wisdom tooth extraction seems to be associated with an increased incidence of dry socket.

Post-operative sequelae of lower third molar removal: a literature review and pilot study on the effect of Covomycin D

Pain, swelling and dry socket formation commonly follow third molar surgery. The objective was to investigate the effect of intrasocket Covomycin D, an antibiotic/anti-inflammatory medication, on pain, swelling and dry socket following lower third molar removal. Nineteen subjects had bilateral lower third molars removed. The patients were blinded to the side of medication; the opposite side acted as the control; post-operatively a pain visual analogue scale was completed, the side of the worst swelling and the incidence of dry socket noted. The data was analysed using the Wilcoxons matched pairs signed ranks test. Results showed that the pain score was lower for the medicated side in 11 patients on day one and in 16 patients over the six day post-operative period (p < 0.6). The swelling was less on the medicated side in fourteen patients. Three dry sockets developed in non-medicated sockets. In conclusion this study shows that the use of intra-socket Covomycin D favourably influences post-operative sequelae following lower third molar removal.

The prevention of 'dry socket' with topical metronidazole in general dental practice

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to determine if the intra-alveolar application of topical metronidazole gel could reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following routine tooth extraction in molar and premolar extraction sites.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. A total of 302 patients took part, of which 23 returned with alveolar osteitis. Of these, eight had received the metronidazole gel and 15 the placebo.

SETTING

The study was carried out in three general dental practices by general dental practitioners working in England over the period 2000-2003.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Following extraction of either a molar or premolar tooth, either a 25% metronidazole gel or KY Jelly was syringed gently into the socket. A painful post operative complication was recorded if either a dry socket was present or the patient returned with pain.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The difference in the incidence of alveolar osteitis between the placebo and the active gel groups was not significant and it was concluded that 25% topical metronidazole gel was not effective in reducing the incidence of alveolar osteitis. It was found that the incidence of alveolar osteitis reduced with increasing age and was more likely to occur in a patient with a previous history of the condition.

Intra-alveolar chlorhexidine gel for the prevention of dry socket in mandibular third molar surgery. A pilot study

PURPOSE

Chlorhexidine is a good prophylactic agent for post-extraction dry socket alveolitis. The bio-adhesive 0.2% chlorhexidine gel could improve this action since its intra-alveolar positioning would allow a more direct action on the alveolus and more prolonged action of the medication.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We present a single blind, randomised study on 30 patients to evaluate the efficacy of the bio-adhesive 0.2% chlorhexidine gel, placed only once within the alveolus, on the reduction of the incidence of impacted third molar post-extraction dry socket alveolitis and its post-operative effects on patients.

RESULTS

A reduction of 42.65% in the occurrence of alveolitis and a more favourable post-operative period in the experimental group was observed. In the control group, the appearance of alveolitis was 30.76% opposite to 17.64 % in the experimental group.

CONCLUSIONS

The bio-adhesive 0.2% chlorhexidine gel, applied only once after the extraction of impacted third molars, seems to be an appropriate option for the reduction of alveolitis. It improves the buccal aperture and oedema in the post-operative period, although further double blind studies with larger samples are necessary.

Prevention of alveolar osteitis with chlorhexidine: A meta-analytic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess if chlorhexidine (CHX) rinse decreases the occurrence of alveolar osteitis (AO) following third molar removal.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search identified 7 randomized prospective clinical trials reporting incidence of AO following removal of mandibular third molars. Studies were combined into 2 groups and summary relative risks were calculated for each group. One group of studies evaluated rinsing on the day of surgery only and the second group of studies rinsed at least on the day of surgery and several days after surgery.

RESULTS

The relative risk for the single rinse group was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80, 2.33), P>.05, whereas for the multiple rinse group, the relative risk was 1.90 (95% CI 1.46, 2.47), P<.05.

CONCLUSION

Rinsing with CHX on the day of surgery and several days after may reduce the incidence of AO.