ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Treatment of odontogenic infections: An analysis of two antibiotic regimens.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the penetration of clindamycin into the masseter muscle really enough to treat odontogenic infections?Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Cefazolin versus ampicillin/sulbactam as an empiric antibiosis in severe odontogenic neck infection descending from the lower jaw-retrospective analysis of 350 cases.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Treatment of odontogenic abscesses: comparison of primary and secondary removal of the odontogenic focus and antibiotic therapy.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2020Article
- Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms and antibiotic sensitivity of odontogenic maxillofacial infections.Odontology · 2019Article
- Aetiopathogenesis and Treatment Evaluation of Odontogenic Cellulitis in the Maxillofacial Region: a Retrospective Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRetrospective analysis of the efficacy for two commonly used antibiotic regimens in the management of severe odontogenic infections. PATIENTS AND
methodsEvaluation of records of patients admitted to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery service at Boston University Medical Center from 2009 to 2014 with severe infections of odontogenic origin (SOI). Patients were divided into two groups based on the administered intravenous antibiotic: 1) Group I: Clindamycin only and 2) Group II: Penicillin and Metronidazole. Variables evaluated included demographic characteristics, ASA status, and anatomic site of infection risk, length of hospital stay, antibiotic failure, and pharmaceutical treatment cost.
results78 patients (46 males and 32 females) were included in the study. There were 57 patients in group I (average age 32.6 years) and 21 in Group II (average age 32.8 years). The average white cell count at time of admission count was higher in Group I (19.3) versus Group II (17.4). Antibiotic failure rate was 3.5% in Group I and 4.7% for group 2 patients.
conclusionClindamycin alone and combination of Penicillin with Metronidazole are both effective pharmaceutical regimens for SOI. Clindamycin therapy resulted in shorter hospital stay and lower net treatment costs with a slightly higher success rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.