-
BioMed Research International 2021The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the quality and outcome of studies into artificial intelligence techniques, analysis, and effect in dentistry.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the quality and outcome of studies into artificial intelligence techniques, analysis, and effect in dentistry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using the MeSH keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), dentistry, AI in dentistry, neural networks and dentistry, machine learning, AI dental imaging, and AI treatment recommendations and dentistry. Two investigators performed an electronic search in 5 databases: PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect databases (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and the Cochrane Collaboration (Wiley). The English language articles reporting on AI in different dental specialties were screened for eligibility. Thirty-two full-text articles were selected and systematically analyzed according to a predefined inclusion criterion. These articles were analyzed as per a specific research question, and the relevant data based on article general characteristics, study and control groups, assessment methods, outcomes, and quality assessment were extracted.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 175 articles related to AI in dentistry based on the title and abstracts. The full text of 38 articles was assessed for eligibility to exclude studies not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Six articles not related to AI in dentistry were excluded. Thirty-two articles were included in the systematic review. It was revealed that AI provides accurate patient management, dental diagnosis, prediction, and decision making. Artificial intelligence appeared as a reliable modality to enhance future implications in the various fields of dentistry, i.e., diagnostic dentistry, patient management, head and neck cancer, restorative dentistry, prosthetic dental sciences, orthodontics, radiology, and periodontics.
CONCLUSION
The included studies describe that AI is a reliable tool to make dental care smooth, better, time-saving, and economical for practitioners. AI benefits them in fulfilling patient demand and expectations. The dentists can use AI to ensure quality treatment, better oral health care outcome, and achieve precision. AI can help to predict failures in clinical scenarios and depict reliable solutions. However, AI is increasing the scope of state-of-the-art models in dentistry but is still under development. Further studies are required to assess the clinical performance of AI techniques in dentistry.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Dentistry; Diagnostic Imaging; Forecasting; Humans; Machine Learning; Neural Networks, Computer; Radiography, Dental
PubMed: 34258283
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9751564 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Feb 2021The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) among the general population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) among the general population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five main electronic databases and three grey literature were searched to identify observational studies in which TMJD was diagnosed using the research diagnostic criteria (RDC/TMD) or diagnostic criteria (DC/TMD). The studies were blindly selected by two reviewers based on eligibility criteria. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist, and the "R" Statistics software was used to perform meta-analyses.
RESULTS
From 2741 articles, 21 were included. Ten studies were judged at low RoB, seven at moderate, and four at high. The TMJD investigated were as follows: arthralgia, disk displacement (DDs) with reduction (DDwR), DDwR with intermittent locking, DDs without reduction (DDwoR) with limited opening, DDwoR without limited opening, degenerative joint disease (DJD), osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, and subluxation. The main results from prevalence overall meta-analyses for adults/elderly are as follows: TMJD (31.1%), DDs (19.1%), and DJD (9.8%). Furthermore, for children/adolescents are as follows: TMJD (11.3%), DDs (8.3%), and DJD (0.4%). Considering the individual diagnosis meta-analyses, the most prevalent TMJD is DDwR for adults/elderly (25.9%) and children/adolescents (7.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall prevalence of TMJD was approximately 31% for adults/elderly and 11% for children/adolescents, and the most prevalent TMJD was DDwR.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Knowledge about the frequency of TMJD can encourage dentists to consider appropriate strategies for early and correct diagnosis and, if need be, correct management.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Humans; Joint Dislocations; Prevalence; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 33409693
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03710-w -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jan 2023This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles reporting data from primary longitudinal clinical studies on composite longevity published 2011-2021. Prospective or retrospective studies with restorations in permanent dentition, with follow-up periods of at least 5 years were included.
RESULTS
In total, 33 articles were included with different study designs, practice settings, datasets, countries of origin, and sample sizes. Annual failure rates of restorations ranged from 0.08% to 6.3%. Survival rates varied between 23% and 97.7%, success rates varied between 43.4% and 98.7%. Secondary caries, fractures, and esthetic compromise were main reasons for failures. Risk factors for reduced restoration durability included patient-level factors (e.g., caries risk, parafunctional habits, number of check-ups per year, socioeconomic status), dentist factors (different operators, operator's experience), and tooth/restoration factors (endodontic treatment, type of tooth, number of restored surfaces). Patient gender and the composite used generally did not influence durability.
SIGNIFICANCE
A number of risk factors are involved in the longevity of composite restorations. Differences between composites play a minor role in durability, assuming that materials and techniques are properly applied by dentists. Patient factors play a major role in longevity. The decision-making process implemented by dentists relative to the diagnosis of aging or failed restorations may also affect the longevity of restorations. Clinicians should treat patients comprehensively and promote a healthy lifestyle to ensure longevity.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36494241
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence). The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Eugenol; Humans; Mouthwashes; Pain; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 36156769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3 -
Journal of Dentistry Jul 2022Detecting caries lesions is challenging for dentists, and deep learning models may help practitioners to increase accuracy and reliability. We aimed to systematically... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Detecting caries lesions is challenging for dentists, and deep learning models may help practitioners to increase accuracy and reliability. We aimed to systematically review deep learning studies on caries detection.
DATA
We selected diagnostic accuracy studies that used deep learning models on dental imagery (including radiographs, photographs, optical coherence tomography images, near-infrared light transillumination images). The latest version of the quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity in the studies methods and their performance measurements.
SOURCES
Databases (Medline via PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase) and a repository (ArXiv) were screened for publications published after 2010, without any limitation on language.
STUDY SELECTION
From 252 potentially eligible references, 48 studies were assessed full-text and 42 included, using classification (n = 26), object detection (n = 6), or segmentation models (n = 10). A wide range of performance metrics was used; image, object or pixel accuracy ranged between 68%-99%. The minority of studies (n = 11) showed a low risk of biases in all domains, and 13 studies (31.0%) low risk for concerns regarding applicability. The accuracy of caries classification models varied, i.e. 71% to 96% on intra-oral photographs, 82% to 99.2% on peri-apical radiographs, 87.6% to 95.4% on bitewing radiographs, 68.0% to 78.0% on near-infrared transillumination images, 88.7% to 95.2% on optical coherence tomography images, and 86.1% to 96.1% on panoramic radiographs. Pooled diagnostic odds ratios varied from 2.27 to 32,767. For detection and segmentation models, heterogeneity in reporting did not allow useful pooling.
CONCLUSION
An increasing number of studies investigated caries detection using deep learning, with a diverse types of architectures being employed. Reported accuracy seems promising, while study and reporting quality are currently low.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Deep learning models can be considered as an assistant for decisions regarding the presence or absence of carious lesions.
Topics: Deep Learning; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35367318
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104115 -
Work (Reading, Mass.) 2023There is an increasing concern about musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), resulting from occupational health hazards among dentists. Dentists who are susceptible to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is an increasing concern about musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), resulting from occupational health hazards among dentists. Dentists who are susceptible to occupational health hazards could develop cumulative trauma disorders, lead to absenteeism from work, loss of productivity and performance or even long-term disability.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among dentists, explore the risk factors and identify the ergonomic preventive measures for dental professionals.
METHODS
Articles published between 2008-2020 were searched in scientific databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Systematic Review Checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were found to be suitable in the final review. Relevant data was extracted and summarized from the included studies. The annual prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in any body site ranged between 68% and 100%. The most predominant regions for musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals were identified to be the lower back (29% to 94.6%), shoulder (25% to 92.7%), and neck (26% to 92%). The most frequently reported risk factors of MSDs were the individual characteristic female gender (57.1%), followed by awkward working postures (50%), long working experience (50%) and being dental specialists (42.9%). Several preventive measures were identified as the most effective ways in preventing MSDs, the use of magnification (40%) and regular physical activity (40%).
CONCLUSIONS
This review reported a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) among dentists. It critically updates and adds the latest evidence on occupational ergonomics among dentists.
Topics: Humans; Female; Dentists; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Ergonomics; Posture; Risk Factors; Occupational Diseases; Prevalence
PubMed: 36278379
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-211094 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2023To explore the implications for dentists and family doctors of the association between periodontal and systemic diseases and the role of dentists and family doctors in... (Review)
Review
Association between periodontal diseases and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and respiratory diseases: Consensus report of the Joint Workshop by the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and the European arm of the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA Europe).
AIM
To explore the implications for dentists and family doctors of the association between periodontal and systemic diseases and the role of dentists and family doctors in managing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and promoting healthy lifestyles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The consensus reports of the previous Focused Workshops on the associations between periodontitis and diabetes (2017) and periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases (2019) formed the technical reviews to underpin discussions on both topics. For the association with respiratory diseases, a systematic review was specifically commissioned for the Workshop discussions. Working groups prepared proposals independently, and then the proposals were discussed and approved at plenary meetings.
RESULTS
Periodontitis is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea and COVID-19 complications. Dentists and family doctors should collaborate in managing NCDs, implementing strategies for early detection of periodontitis in primary care centres and of cardiovascular diseases or diabetes in dental settings. Family doctors should be informed about periodontal diseases and their consequences, and oral health professionals (OHPs) should be informed about the relevance of NCDs and the associated risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Closer collaboration between OHPs and family doctors is important in the early detection and management of NCDs and in promoting healthy lifestyles. Pathways for early case detection of periodontitis in family medicine practices and of NCDs in dental practices should be developed and evaluated.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Cardiovascular Diseases; COVID-19; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontitis; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Europe; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36935200
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13807 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched up until December 2018. The manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and relevant journals. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between T2DM and periodontitis were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using STATA.
RESULTS
A total of 53 observational studies were included. The Adjusted T2DM prevalence was significantly higher in periodontitis patients (OR = 4.04, p = 0.000), and vice versa (OR = 1.58, p = 0.000). T2DM patients had significantly worse periodontal status, as reflected in a 0.61 mm deeper periodontal pocket, a 0.89 mm higher attachment loss and approximately 2 more lost teeth (all p = 0.000), than those without T2DM. The results of the cohort studies found that T2DM could elevate the risk of developing periodontitis by 34% (p = 0.002). The glycemic control of T2DM patients might result in different periodontitis outcomes. Severe periodontitis increased the incidence of T2DM by 53% (p = 0.000), and this result was stable. In contrast, the impact of mild periodontitis on T2DM incidence (RR = 1.28, p = 0.007) was less robust.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an evident bidirectional relationship between T2DM and periodontitis. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm this finding. Our results suggest that both dentists and physicians need to be aware of the strong connection between periodontitis and T2DM. Controlling these two diseases might help prevent each other's incidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis
PubMed: 32652980
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01180-w -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Jun 2020The aim of this review is to quantify the prevalence and type of malocclusion among children and adolescents during the different stages of dentition worldwide. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this review is to quantify the prevalence and type of malocclusion among children and adolescents during the different stages of dentition worldwide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Recent studies (from 2009 to 2019), published in Medline, Web of Science and Embase and orthodontic text-books have been comprehensively reviewed herein. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using STROBE criteria.
RESULTS
After screening 450 records and analysing 284 relevant full-text publications, 77 studies were included in this review. A good degree of evidence was obtained due to the medium-high methodological quality level of included studies. The worldwide prevalence of malocclusion was 56% (95% CI: 11-99), without differences in gender. The highest prevalence was in Africa (81%) and Europe (72%), followed by America (53%) and Asia (48%). The malocclusion prevalence score did not change from primary to permanent dentition with a common score of 54%. Malocclusion traits such as Angle's classes, overjet, overbite, and asymmetrical midline shift essentially did not change their prevalence during different dentitions. Conversely, traits such as cross-bite and diastema reduced their prevalence during permanent dentition, while scissor-bite and dental crowding increased their scores.
CONCLUSION
The worldwide high prevalence of malocclusion and its early onset during childhood should induce policymakers as well as paediatric physicians and dentists to devise policies and adopt clinical strategies for preventing malocclusion since younger children's ages.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Dentition; Europe; Humans; Malocclusion; Overbite; Prevalence
PubMed: 32567942
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.02.05 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3