ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Recommendation of antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery according to current microbial resistance, a retrospective analysis of 100 operated cases.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMaxillofacial infections (MIs), particularly surgical site infections (SSIs) following orthognathic surgery, represent a significant clinical concern due to their potential severity and impact on treatment outcomes. Although antibiotic prophylaxis is standard practice, growing bacterial resistance-especially in penicillin-allergic patients-challenges the effectiveness of alternative regimens such as clindamycin. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive patients who underwent orthognathic surgery between 2022 and 2023, performed by the same surgical team. All patients received standardized perioperative care, including hospitalization and intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin or clindamycin for those allergic to penicillin. The incidence of SSIs was evaluated and correlated with the type of antibiotic used. Microbial cultures and antibiograms were obtained from infected cases requiring surgical wound revision.
resultsOf the 100 patients, 98 received prophylactic cefazolin and showed no SSIs. The remaining 2 patients, both allergic to penicillin and treated with IV clindamycin, developed SSIs within the first postoperative week. Both cases required surgical drainage, hospitalization, and culture-based antibiotic therapy. Pathogens isolated included Streptococcus mitis, S. oralis, S. constellatus, and Haemophilus parainfluenzae, all resistant to clindamycin and erythromycin but sensitive to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones. Both patients responded favorably to ciprofloxacin and metronidazole.
conclusionsThis study highlights a significant risk of infection associated with clindamycin prophylaxis in penicillin-allergic patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Cefazolin proved effective in preventing SSIs. These findings underscore the urgent need for updated, evidence-based prophylactic protocols in maxillofacial surgery, particularly for patients with beta-lactam allergies.
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.