ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2024
A survey of dental professionals' opinions around the use of antibiotics in molar 3 extractions and dental implant placement.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence and guideline adherence of antibiotic prescribing in dental implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This survey was conducted to determine the type and frequency of antibiotics (AB) use for the prevention of infections in dental third molar (M3) extraction and implantation procedures (DIP) among UK dentists and the opinions underpinning their practice. Methods and design: Systematic reviews of the evidence were undertaken alongside this survey of practicing dentists in the United Kingdom to identify the opinions and practices of those undertaking the procedures.With ethical approval, a survey was designed for online delivery and was sent to every dental practitioner in the UK with a publicly available email address or social media contact. The opening page provided the project information sheet and proceeding to complete and submit the questionnaire was considered consent to participate. The online survey was circulated to 900 identified addresses and a total of 145 responses were received. Responses were collated in Microsoft® Excel™ and analyzed using IBM® SPSS™ plus thematic analysis of free text responses. Results: There were 42% of participants (n=61) who discouraged AB prophylactic use in M3 extractions in people with no systemic conditions and who also preferred postoperative AB use when required. Where, 57.9% of respondents (n=84) supported the short-term use of ABs (5-7 days) for M3 extraction and 53% (n=77) in DIP placement in patients with no relevant medical history. As an Conclusion: The use of antibiotics and broad spectrum antibiotics remains higher than current guidelines would recommend. Further research is required to clarify the specific risks arising from underlying medical conditions to further clarify where prophylaxis is required.
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.