ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025
Optimal Duration of Antibiotic Therapy for Space Infections in the Maxillofacial Region: A Systematic Review.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reassessing Antibiotic Duration in Dental Infections: A Narrative Review and Marginal Benefit-Harm Framework with a Clinical Checklist.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Combined BTX-A and Collagen Membrane in Benign Parotid Enucleation: A Comparative Cohort Study.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Article
- Analysis of pathogenic bacteria of oral and maxillofacial space infection and the effect of vacuum sealing drainage treatment.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aimed to examine and highlight the treatment protocols and optimal duration of antibiotic regimens used in managing maxillofacial space infections of odontogenic origin, along with the associated clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024621000). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted for studies from January 2003 to October 2024 using relevant MeSH terms. Studies were selected based on PEO criteria, focusing on the antibiotic treatment protocols and duration for odontogenic maxillofacial space infections, with inclusion of original human research and exclusion of non-relevant or unclear studies. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, resolving disagreements through discussion.
resultsAfter data extraction, 277 papers were initially identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 141 articles were screened, of which 64 were selected for full-text assessment and 55 were excluded with justification. Ultimately, nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. These included two prospective double-blinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs), two prospective RCTs, four retrospective studies, and one prospective study, all involving patients with dentoalveolar orofacial infections. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment using RoB 2 indicated that two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had a low risk, and one raised some concerns. ROBINS-I assessment showed moderate risk of bias in three studies, while two were not evaluated.
conclusionThis review concludes that prompt incision and drainage combined with a short-course antibiotic regimen of two to five days is generally effective for managing odontogenic maxillofacial space infections, though further high-quality randomized trials are needed to standardize treatment protocols.
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.