ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Critical analysis of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of antibiotics in third molar surgeries using AMSTAR 2.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Antibiotics on Clinical and Laboratory Outcomes After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Effect of Photobiomodulation on Third Molar Wound Recovery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study.Irish veterinary journal · 2023Article
- Association between the Risk of Preterm Birth and Low Birth Weight with Periodontal Disease in Pregnant Women: An Umbrella Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three-dental-implants: A protocol of an overview of reviews.PloS one · 2022Article
- Severe Infections after Tooth Removal: a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinicians usually prescribe antibiotics to reduce post-operative complications during third molar surgeries. However, in the absence of clear conclusions regarding the use of antibiotics in third molar surgeries, present systematic review was planned to assess the quality of systematic reviews evaluating the efficiency of antibiotics in reducing post-operative complications. The literature search was done in Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, EMBASE, and Google scholar. Systematic reviews published in English during the period from January 1990 to December 2019 were included. The maxillary and mandibular third molars indicated for extraction either because of infection, orthodontic or prophylactic reasons were included. From 526 screened studies, thirteen reviews were qualified for qualitative analysis. The qualities of the included reviews were evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The included reviews were also evaluated based on the number of authors, geographic region, impact factor of the published journal, year of publication, and the number of citations for each review. One high quality, eight moderate quality, three low quality, and one critically low-quality reviews were observed in the present review. No statistically significant difference was observed between the included reviews based upon the analysis of the number of authors, geographic region, impact factor of the published journal, year of publication, and the number of citations for each review. Considering the observations form the high and moderate-quality reviews, the present systematic review concludes that antibiotics effectively aid in reducing the post-operative complications and frequency of observation of dry socket.
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.