ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2020
Treatment of odontogenic abscesses: comparison of primary and secondary removal of the odontogenic focus and antibiotic therapy.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic resistance in odontogenic infections: A systematic review of current evidence and implications for guideline-based therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Antibiotic susceptibility of orofacial infections in Bratislava: a 10-year retrospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Retrospective Longitudinal Study on Changes in Atmospheric Pressure as a Predisposing Factor for Odontogenic Abscess Formation.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Oral Antibiotic for Empirical Management of Acute Dentoalveolar Infections-A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the time of removal of the odontogenic focus, antibiotic therapy and risk factors in odontogenic abscesses. PATIENTS: From January 2012 to December 2015, inpatients undergoing incision due to odontogenic abscesses were identified in a retrospective study. All the patients were evaluated for time of removal of the odontogenic focus, antibiotic therapy, germ spectrum, complications and risk factors.
resultsTwo hundred ten patients completed the study. In 89 cases (42.4%), the odontogenic focus was removed as part of the abscess treatment (group A). In 121 cases (57.6%), the focus was secondarily removed (group B). On average, 2 ± 4 teeth were removed in group A, and 6 ± 5 teeth in group B (p < 0.0001). An average of 1.2 ± 0.4 surgical interventions were performed in group A, and 2 ± 0.2 operations in group B (p < 0.0001). Microbiological examination was positive in one-third of the cases (70 cases). Most commonly, streptococci (27%) were isolated. A resistance screening was possible in 57 of the detected germs (68.7%). In 89% of these patients, the combination of ampicillin-sulbactam was effective. The hospital stay was 4.8 ± 2 days for group A and 7.6 ± 3 days for group B (p < 0.0001). The clinical evaluation revealed 12 intermediate (5.7%) and three long-term (1.4%) complications. The long-term complications included a recurrence in two cases (1%) and an osteomyelitis in one case (0.5%). A logistic regression analysis identified no significant risk factor in relation to these complications.
conclusionThe study shows that a primary removal of the odontogenic focus may have advantages over a secondary removal: (1) fewer operations, (2) shorter hospital stay and (3) shorter antibiotic therapy. Broad-spectrum penicillins in combination with beta-lactamase inhibitors are a possible, sufficient antibiotic regimen. Long-term complications are rare. No risk factors are identified in relation to these complications.
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.