Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
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.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin in third molar extractions: a randomized controlled split-mouth study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Review
- Influence of Amoxicillin Dosage and Time of Administration on Postoperative Complications After Impacted Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Different Surgical Removal Techniques for Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Impactions: A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Postoperative pain and influencing factors after prophylactic extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a multicenter prospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques for the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Selective outcome reporting concerning antibiotics and third molar surgery.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Reevaluating antibiotic prophylaxis: insights from a network meta-analysis on dry socket and surgical site infections.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Article
- Augmented Reality-Guided Extraction of Fully Impacted Lower Third Molars Based on Maxillofacial CBCT Scans.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Antibiotics in Dentistry: A Narrative Review of the Evidence beyond the Myth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Managing Oral Health in the Context of Antimicrobial Resistance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince 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
methodsA 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.
resultsPrimary 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.
conclusionsPerioperative 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.
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.