Antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery. Does prophylactic administration of systemic antibiotics prevent postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery? Role of antimicrobials in third molar surgery: prospective, double blind,randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study. Comparison of two chlorhexidine rinse protocols on the incidence of alveolar osteitis following the surgical removal of impacted third molars. The prevention of 'dry socket' with topical metronidazole in general dental practice. Effect of azidocillin, erythromycin, clindamycin and doxycycline on postoperative complications after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Prophylactic use of phenoxymethylpenicillin and tinidazole in mandibular third molar surgery, a comparative placebo controlled clinical trial. A prospective, randomised trial of prophylactic antibiotics versus bag extraction in the prophylaxis of wound infection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prophylaxis versus pre-emptive treatment for infective and inflammatory complications of surgical third molar removal: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial with sustained release amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1000/62.5 mg).
To evaluate the role of prophylactic antibiotics, if any, in the removal of mandibular impacted third molars.
                A total of 89 patients were randomly allocated in 3 groups (group 1, placebo; group 2, amoxicillin 1 g orally 1 h before surgery; and group 3, metronidazole 800 mg orally 1 h before surgery).
                Of the 89 patients, 5 had surgical wound infection (3 [10.33%] in group 1, 2 [6.45%] in group 2, and none [0%] in group 3), leading to an overall infection rate of 5.61%. There was no statistically significant difference found in surgical wound infection between the groups.
                Our study failed to show any advantage in the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics because we found no statistically significant difference between the groups. To estimate and compare the frequencies of inflammatory complications after third molar (M3) surgery in subjects receiving intravenous prophylactic antibiotics or saline placebo.
                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.
                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.
                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. To test the efficacy of two dosing regimens of antimicrobial prophylaxis during the removal of impacted lower third molars.
                Double blind, prospective, placebo-controlled trial.
                Teaching hospital, India.
                151 patients aged 19-36 having impacted lower third molars removed.
                Random allocation into three groups: placebo (n= 34), metronidazole 1g orally, 1 hour preoperatively (n= 44), or metronidazole 400mg orally eight hourly for 5 days postoperatively (n= 47). Patients were recalled on the sixth postoperative day for assessment of pain scores on the second and sixth days, swelling, differences in mouth opening between preoperative and the sixth postoperative day, and the state of the wound.
                There were no significant differences in the outcome between the three groups (P= 0.09).
                Antimicrobial prophylaxis does not seem to reduce morbidity after removal of lower third molars.
                Copyright 2001 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 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.
                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.
                The results indicated group I and group II were not statistically significant different in the reduction of alveolar osteitis.
                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. 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.
                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.
                The study was carried out in three general dental practices by general dental practitioners working in England over the period 2000-2003.
                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.
                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. Treatment of osteitis after surgical removal of the third molar of the mandible is still a clinical problem. A total of 140 patients undergoing operations for removal of an impacted third molar of the mandible, were included in a double-blind study. Placebo or antibiotics - azidocillin, erythromycin, clindamycin and doxycycline - were given to the patients preoperatively and for the following 7 days. The concentrations in serum, alveolar serum and mandibular bone were measured and the postoperative courses - pain, trismus, swelling and wound-healing - were recorded. No correlation was obtained between the antibiotic concentration and the postoperative complaints, except in the azidocillin group on day 2, in which fewer complaints were noticed in patients with high concentrations of the drug at the time of operations. The 80 patients in the antibiotic groups responded significantly better with respect to wound-healing than the 60 patients in the placebo groups. Only 15 operations lasted more than 15 min and the three of them which subsequently resulted in alveolitis were in the placebo groups. Antibiotics significantly reduced pain on day 7 postoperatively. In general, no statistically significant differences in trismus and swelling could be demonstrated between the patient groups. However, there was a significant difference between the placebo and doxycycline groups with respect to swelling (day 2 postoperative, P < 0.01; day 5 postoperative, P < 0.05). Thus systemically administered antibiotics offered only slight advantages in routine operations of impacted third mandibular molars, but could decrease the rate of infections after traumatic operations. A clinical double-blind placebo controlled trial was carried out in 136 patients to test the value of the prophylactic use of phenoxymethylpenicillin and tinidazole in mandibular third molar surgery. The three patient groups were uniform with regard to the background data such as age and weight of the patients and the clinical status of the operated tooth, as well as to the observations made at surgery. No statistically significant differences were found between the study groups in the parameters used for evaluation. The results indicate that neither penicillin nor tinidazole have more effect on postoperative complications following operative extraction of wisdom teeth, than placebo tablets. Septic complications are rare following laparoscopic cholecystectomy if prophylactic antibiotics are given, as demonstrated in previous studies. Antibiotic treatment may be unnecessary and, therefore, undesirable, so we compared two forms of prophylaxis: a cephalosporin antibiotic and bag extraction of the dissected gallbladder. A total of 76 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to either receive an antibiotic or to have their gallbladder removed from the abdomen in a plastic bag. Complicated cases were excluded. There was a total of 6 wound infections (7.9%), 3 in each of the study groups. All these were associated with skin commensals. There were no other septic complications. Bacteriological studies grouped the organisms isolated from the bile and the wound as potential pathogens and likely commensals. A total of 10 potential pathogens were isolated, 9 of which were found in the group receiving antibiotics. We conclude that septic sequelae of uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy are uncommon, but clearly not entirely prevented by antibiotic or mechanical prophylaxis. Prophylactic antibiotics may not be required in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further study is warranted. The most common complications after surgical extraction of the third mandibular molar are trismus, oedema or swelling, local pain, dysphagia and infection. The aim of this comparative, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of two sustained release amoxicillin/clavulanate regimens in the reduction of infection after third molar extractive surgery. A total of 225 patients were randomized into three equal groups: placebo, prophylaxis with single pre-surgical dose of two tablets amoxicillin/clavulanate 1000/62.5 mg, and pre-emptive post-surgery therapy with two tablets amoxicillin/clavulanate 1000/62.5 mg BID for 5 days. A higher rate of infection (P=0.006) was found among patients receiving placebo (16%) than those receiving single-dose prophylaxis (5.3%) or 5-day pre-emptive therapy (2.7%). A relationship between both the duration (13.8% for long versus 7.4% for medium versus 1.6% for short) and difficulty (12.7% with ostectomy versus 3.5% without ostectomy; P=0.011) of surgical procedure and incidence of subsequent infection was also observed. Both prophylactic and therapeutic regimens versus placebo achieved greater reduction of pain after surgery on day 3 (P=0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed a risk of infection of 24%, 9% and 4% for ostectomy with placebo, prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment, respectively, whereas it was 7%, 2% and 1% if ostectomy was not performed. Pre-emptive therapy with the oral sustained release amoxicillin/clavulanate formulation reduced the rate of subsequent infection in patients undergoing ostectomy. Prophylaxis was beneficial in simpler procedures and may be indicated in cases where ostectomy is not performed.
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.