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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kirnbauer, Barbara, Jakse, Norbert, Truschnegg, Astrid, Dzidic, Ivana, Mukaddam, Khaled, Payer, Michael
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