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. (AU)

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.

Assessment of Dry Socket after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery Using Platelet-Rich Fibrin - A Prospective Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVE:  To determine the efficacy of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) in preventing Dry Socket (DS) after mandibular third molar surgery in comparison with the control group. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. Place and Duration of the Study: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Dental Section, Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad, Pakistan, from July 2019 to June 2021. METHODOLOGY: Patients aged 18-35 years with good oral hygiene, and requiring surgical extraction of their mandibular third molar were included in the study. Those with periodontal disease, pregnant or nursing women, smokers, or allergic to the agents that were recommended for use before and after surgery, were excluded. Patients presenting for surgical removal of the mandibular third molar and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. Standard protocol for tooth removal was followed in both groups. Group1 (study group) received PRF and group 2 (control group) did not receive PRF. RESULTS: A total of 170 consecutive patients (85/group) were randomly selected and allocated to the study group and control group. The mean age in the study group was 24.28±3.7 years while the mean age in the control group was 24.14±3.64 years. Out of them, 51.2% (n=87) were males and 48.8% (n=83) were females with a M: F of 1:1.05. On the 3rd postoperative day, DS frequency in the study group was 2.4% (n=2) and 18.8% (n=16) in the control group (p=0.0001), which reduced to 01 and 05 respectively on 7th day (p=0.096). CONCLUSION: PRF administration was effective in preventing DS on the third postoperative day in mandibular third molar surgery, with statistically significant results. However, on postoperative day 7, the results were not statistically significant. KEY WORDS: Third molar, Tooth extraction, Dry socket, PRF.

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.

Three-Dimensional evaluation of the effect of platelet-rich fibrin on edema in lower impacted third molar surgery performed with piezosurgery.

Background: Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are widely used in impacted lower third molar (IL3M) 7 surgery and its effect on postoperative edema was generally analysed with linear methods. Aim: To analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) applied to the socket after tooth extraction in impacted lower third molar (IL3M) surgery performed with piezosurgery in the reduction of edema observed in the postoperative period, together with conventional (linear) and three-dimensional (volumetric) measurement methods. Materials and Method: The study was designed as a prospective randomized split-mouth study and was conducted on 30 patients with bilateral IL3M teeth. Extraction of the patients' IL3M teeth was performed in the same session with the help of piezosurgery. After the extraction, PRF was randomly applied to one socket, but it was not applied to the other socket, which formed the control group. On the first, second, and seventh days after the procedure, volume was measured using 3dMD, and the distance between the topographic guide points was measured using a flexible ruler. The results were analyzed statistically. Alveolar osteitis (AO) presence was also recorded. Results: A significant improvement in edema was observed in both groups, but no significant difference was found between the groups (P > 0.05). A moderate correlation was found between the two methods of measuring edema. AO was not seen in any patient. Conclusions: Although PRF reduces edema after IL3M tooth extraction and 3dMD is effective in its evaluation, it has no statistical advantage over classical methods.

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.

A Comparison of Pre-Emptive Co-Amoxiclav, Postoperative Amoxicillin, and Metronidazole for Prevention of Postoperative Complications in Dentoalveolar Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of different oral antibiotics for prevention of dry socket and infection in adults following the surgical extraction of teeth under LA. METHODS: This randomized controlled study was conducted from 10 September 2020 until 10 May 2021. Forty-six patients were randomly allocated to three groups. Sixteen patients were in the postoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) group, fifteen in the preoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) plus postoperative metronidazole (500 mg) group and fifteen in the preoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) plus postoperative amoxicillin (500 mg) group. Evaluation of the postoperative signs of alveolar osteitis and infection was made by a dental surgeon five days postoperatively. Evaluation of the post-surgical extraction pain was made by patients immediately and five days postoperatively on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS). Furthermore, difficulty of surgery was recorded for all patients immediately postoperatively using (VAS). RESULTS: all antibiotics used in this study were effective. Only 15% of patients had painful alveolar osteitis and 2% had oral infections. There was no significant decrease in the number of patients with severe alveolar osteitis or infection for co-amoxiclav plus metronidazole and co-amoxiclav plus amoxicillin groups compared to co-amoxiclav group at 5 days post-operation (p-values: 0.715, 0.819 & 0.309). Clinically, metronidazole was more effective in protecting the extracted tooth socket from alveolar osteitis compared to co-amoxiclav and amoxicillin. Moreover, there were significant decreases in mean pain scores at 5 days post-operation compared with the levels of pain immediately after surgery (p-value: 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a single preoperative dose of co-amoxiclav with a full postoperative dose of amoxicillin or metronidazole was more effective than conventional treatment with postoperative co-amoxilcalv in reducing the incidence of both alveolar osteitis and infection after surgical extractions. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Interestingly, patients in metronidazole group had the lowest incidence of dry socket.

The use of advanced platelet-rich fibrin after surgical removal of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in recovery following surgical removal of mandibular third molars with the application of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the extraction socket compared with alternative biomaterials or natural wound healing. A search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted. Human randomized controlled trials published in English up until December 31, 2020 were included. Outcome measures were pain, facial swelling, trismus, soft tissue healing, alveolar osteitis, and quality of life; these were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence intervals (CI). Four studies with a low or moderate risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A-PRF resulted in significantly lower pain scores when compared with leucocyte platelet-rich fibrin or natural wound healing after 2 days (-16.8, 95% CI -18.9 to -14.7), 3 days (-12.1, 95% CI -13.4 to -10.7), and 7 days (-1.9, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.9). A-PRF seems to have a negligible effect on facial swelling and trismus and some beneficial effect on soft tissue healing. Alveolar osteitis and quality of life were not assessed. The included studies were characterized by considerable heterogeneity and confounding variables. Thus, the level of evidence appears to be inadequate for clinical recommendations according to the focused question.

Aetiology, Prevention and Management of Alveolar Osteitis-A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use. DESIGN: A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine. RESULTS: Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl. CONCLUSIONS: Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.

Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infectious complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing postoperative infections after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Parallel-group, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed. 154 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups; experimental (n=77) receiving 2g amoxicillin 1 hour prior to surgery and control (n=77) receiving placebo. Primary outcome was postoperative infections and secondary outcome was the need for rescue analgesia. RESULTS: 4.5% of patients developed postoperative infections, five patients of the control group (4 alveolar osteitis, 1 surgical site infection) and two of the experimental group (1 alveolar osteitis, 1 surgical site infection). Difference between groups was not statistically significant, RR=0.4 (95%CI 0.08-1.99, 𝘱=0.41) NNTB=26. Rescue analgesia intake was significantly higher in the control group (41 vs 18 patients of experimental group) RR=0.49 (95%CI 0.32-0.75, 𝘱<0.05) NNTB=3. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 2g amoxicillin 1 hour before surgery was not effective in significantly reducing the risk of postoperative infections from impacted mandibular third molars extraction, when compared to placebo. Nevertheless, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a reduced need for rescue analgesia.

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

PURPOSE: To execute an evidence-based review answering the following questions: "What antibiotic type and mode of delivery are most effective at reducing inflammatory complications in third molar and dental implant surgery? What are the types and rates of antibiotic-related adverse reactions in the context of third molar surgery, infective endocarditis, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) and osteoradionecrosis (ORN)?" MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed studies using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus/Elsevier, Google Scholar, and Wiley online library databases. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were reviewed for third molar surgery. Although there is some evidence that systemic antibiotics reduce inflammatory complications (infection and alveolar osteitis), routine use is not recommended for third molar surgery. For at-risk cases, a single preoperative dose of amoxicillin is preferred. Clindamycin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and erythromycin have a high adverse risk profile. Eight studies were reviewed for dental implant surgery. Antibiotics with dental implant placement showed little reduction in post surgery infection and minimal improvement in long-term success. A comprehensive search found limited data on antibiotic-related adverse effects in the context of infective endocarditis, MRONJ and ORN. CONCLUSIONS: A set of clinical recommendations are presented to better guide evidence-based and standardized antibiotic usage on the basis of the literature discussed in this review. This review highlights the need for further research focusing on antibiotic type and timing of delivery with adverse drug reaction as a primary outcome measure when assessing treatment outcomes and complications in dentoalveolar surgery. This will better elucidate the risks vs benefits of antibiotic in dentoalveolar surgery.

Effect of Photobiomodulation on the Incidence of Alveolar Osteitis and Postoperative Pain following Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy for the prevention of incidence of alveolar osteitis (AO) and postoperative pain following third molar surgery. In this double-blind clinical trial, the impacted teeth of patients having bilateral impacted mandibular third molars were surgically extracted; for each participant, one socket was randomly assigned to receive photobiomodulation treatment, the other received sham treatment. 660 nm 200 mW CW was applied at a distance of ~1cm to 4 points on the occlusal area of extraction socket (beam area at the tissue ~0.64 cm2 , 312.5 mW cm-2 , 1J, 1.6 J cm-2 ). Also, 810 nm 200 mW CW was applied at tissue surface at three points on the buccal and three points on the lingual gingiva, for 15 s (400 mW cm-2 , 3 J, 6 J cm-2 ). There was a statistically meaningful difference in AO frequency between the two groups, and the photobiomodulation group showed lower AO frequency compared with the sham PBM treatment (P-value = 0.035). According to the findings of this study, photobiomodulation therapy reduced the incidence of AO following surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The incidence of AO typically occurs 3-7 days post-extraction, and our results suggest that PBM treatment within the 7 days could help reduce the risk of AO development.

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.

Application of propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E to prevent alveolar osteitis after impacted lower third molar surgery. A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Propolis has anti-inflammatory, analgesic and healing properties. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a gel containing 2% of propolis extract, 0.2% of ascorbic acid and 0.2% of tocopherol acetate is effective in preventing surgical complications related to impacted lower third molar extractions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study was performed. Fifteen patients were recruited who needed bilateral impacted lower third molar extractions with a similar surgical difficulty. A test or placebo gel was administered randomly inside post-extraction sockets. Each patient was instructed to apply the gel 3 times/day in the surgical wound for a week. After a month, the contralateral third molar was extracted, and the opposite gel applied. The following parameters were diagnosed/evaluated and then recorded: alveolar osteitis following Blum's criteria, swelling and trismus at day one, two, three and seven post-intervention, wound healing at day 7 post-intervention, and postoperative pain using a visual analog scale, as well as, the number of analgesic pill intake. RESULTS: A total of twenty-six surgical procedures were performed in 13 patients (mean age 20.67±2 years). Alveolar osteitis was reported in 3 patients from the placebo group (23.1%) and none in the test group (0%) (p=0.25). No statistically significant differences were reported in swelling, trismus, wound healing or analgesic pill consumption between two groups. But statistically lower postoperative pain during the 7 days after surgical extractions was found according to visual analog scale in test group compared to the placebo group (p=0.007). No side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The application of this gel may be effective in preventing alveolitis and thus reducing postoperative pain after impacted third molar extractions. More randomized clinical trials with larger sample are needed to confirm these results.

Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on the control of alveolar osteitis, pain, trismus, soft tissue healing, and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on the control of alveolar osteitis (AO), pain, trismus, soft tissue healing, and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to May 2019. Randomized controlled studies conforming to the inclusion criteria were included. The record screening and data extraction were conducted by two authors independently. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the guidelines recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quantitative analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review and 17 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of PRF significantly reduced the incidence of AO and postoperative pain when compared to the controls (AO: relative risk 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.65, Z=3.90, P<0.0001 (I2=0%); pain: day 1, standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.12, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.37, Z=2.93, P=0.003 (I2=95%); day 3, SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.38, Z=3.30, P=0.001 (I2=92%); day 7, SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.98 to -0.71, Z=3.19, P=0.001 (I2=97%)). Additionally, the result showed a better soft tissue healing when PRF was used (mean difference -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.18, Z=2.76, P=0.006 (I2=90%)). The use of PRF reduced the incidence of AO and postoperative pain following third molar surgery. Furthermore, PRF may also improve the postoperative soft tissue healing.

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.