Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26265063›Full record

Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2015

Antibiotic therapy in fully impacted lower third molar surgery: randomized three-arm, double-blind, controlled trial.

Basílio Almeida Milani, Henrique Camargo Bauer, Hélio Sampaio-Filho, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana, Flávio Eduardo Guillin Perez, Isabel Peixoto Tortamano, Waldyr Antônio Jorge

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Basílio Almeida MilaniSchool of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Henrique Camargo BauerSchool of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hélio Sampaio-FilhoPostgraduate program in Biophotonics applied to Health Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, Uninove, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini HorlianaPostgraduate program in Biophotonics applied to Health Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, Uninove, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. annacrth@gmail.com.
Flávio Eduardo Guillin PerezSchool of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Isabel Peixoto TortamanoSchool of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Waldyr Antônio JorgeSchool of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three drug protocols in patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars.

methodsEighty surgeries were performed on healthy patients using three randomized double-blind drug protocols: group 1 (G1), amoxicillin (1 g) 1 h before surgery + 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days; group 2 (G2), 1-g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery plus placebo, with identical appearance to G1, 8/8 h for 7 days; and group 3 (G3), placebo 1 h before surgery and 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days. The primary outcome criterion was mouth opening, and the secondary outcome criteria were facial edema and pain. Signals as body temperature, lymphadenopathy, and dysphagia characterize the sample. Evaluation was performed at baseline and on the 4th and 7th postoperative days by the same researcher.

resultsThere was no difference among groups with respect to any of the parameters evaluated (p > 0.05).

conclusionUnder these experimental conditions, there is no advantage in the administration of antibiotics in healthy patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars with a controlled aseptic chain.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMolar, ThirdPostoperative PeriodTooth ExtractionTooth, ImpactedTrismusYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsInfectionOral surgical proceduresThird molar

Identifiers

PMID26265063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.