Cargando…
Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design
INTRODUCTION: Since antimicrobial resistance, caused by various factors including antibiotic overuse and abuse, is a severe challenge, the necessity of perioperative antibiotic prophylactic for surgical third molar removal remains a contentious topic. This study determined whether perioperative anti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9525439/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35792962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04597-5 |
_version_ | 1784800705707507712 |
---|---|
author | Kirnbauer, Barbara Jakse, Norbert Truschnegg, Astrid Dzidic, Ivana Mukaddam, Khaled Payer, Michael |
author_facet | Kirnbauer, Barbara Jakse, Norbert Truschnegg, Astrid Dzidic, Ivana Mukaddam, Khaled Payer, Michael |
author_sort | Kirnbauer, Barbara |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Since antimicrobial resistance, caused by various factors including antibiotic overuse and abuse, is a severe challenge, the necessity of perioperative antibiotic prophylactic for surgical third molar removal remains a contentious topic. This study determined whether perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), swelling, and pain in the case of surgical removal of wisdom teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design. A study medication of 2 g amoxicillin, administered 1 h before the third molar removal, followed by 1.5 g each for the first 3 postoperative days, was compared with placebo medication. The primary outcome variable (SSI), secondary clinical parameters (swelling and trismus), and patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, pain, and pain medication intake) were documented until postoperative day 7. Statistical analyses were done with a paired t test, t test for independent samples, Chi-square test, and McNemar test, including effect sizes. RESULTS: Primary outcome SSI, in total 11%, and clinical parameters swelling and trismus were not significantly different between the two groups. The patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, and pain) did not significantly differ, except for postoperative bleeding in the EG on day 0. No significant result was found with pain medication intake postoperative on days 0–7. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative administration of oral antibiotics neither revealed additional benefits in patient-related outcome measures nor reduced postoperative complications compared with the placebo group indicated at routine surgical removal of noninflamed wisdom teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Taking antimicrobial resistance into account, clear recommendations for administering drugs, particularly antibiotics, are critical in oral surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9525439 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95254392022-10-02 Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design Kirnbauer, Barbara Jakse, Norbert Truschnegg, Astrid Dzidic, Ivana Mukaddam, Khaled Payer, Michael Clin Oral Investig Original Article INTRODUCTION: Since antimicrobial resistance, caused by various factors including antibiotic overuse and abuse, is a severe challenge, the necessity of perioperative antibiotic prophylactic for surgical third molar removal remains a contentious topic. This study determined whether perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), swelling, and pain in the case of surgical removal of wisdom teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design. A study medication of 2 g amoxicillin, administered 1 h before the third molar removal, followed by 1.5 g each for the first 3 postoperative days, was compared with placebo medication. The primary outcome variable (SSI), secondary clinical parameters (swelling and trismus), and patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, pain, and pain medication intake) were documented until postoperative day 7. Statistical analyses were done with a paired t test, t test for independent samples, Chi-square test, and McNemar test, including effect sizes. RESULTS: Primary outcome SSI, in total 11%, and clinical parameters swelling and trismus were not significantly different between the two groups. The patient-centered outcome measures (bleeding, swelling, and pain) did not significantly differ, except for postoperative bleeding in the EG on day 0. No significant result was found with pain medication intake postoperative on days 0–7. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative administration of oral antibiotics neither revealed additional benefits in patient-related outcome measures nor reduced postoperative complications compared with the placebo group indicated at routine surgical removal of noninflamed wisdom teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Taking antimicrobial resistance into account, clear recommendations for administering drugs, particularly antibiotics, are critical in oral surgery. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-07-06 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9525439/ /pubmed/35792962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04597-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kirnbauer, Barbara Jakse, Norbert Truschnegg, Astrid Dzidic, Ivana Mukaddam, Khaled Payer, Michael Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title | Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title_full | Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title_fullStr | Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title_full_unstemmed | Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title_short | Is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
title_sort | is perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the case of routine surgical removal of the third molar still justified? a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9525439/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35792962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04597-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kirnbauerbarbara isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign AT jaksenorbert isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign AT truschneggastrid isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign AT dzidicivana isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign AT mukaddamkhaled isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign AT payermichael isperioperativeantibioticprophylaxisinthecaseofroutinesurgicalremovalofthethirdmolarstilljustifiedarandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledclinicaltrialwithasplitmouthdesign |