-
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Jul 2023Infections of orbit and periorbita are frequent, leading to significant morbidity. Orbital cellulitis is more common in children and young adults. At any age, infection... (Review)
Review
Infections of orbit and periorbita are frequent, leading to significant morbidity. Orbital cellulitis is more common in children and young adults. At any age, infection from the neighboring ethmoid sinuses is a likely cause and is thought to result from anatomical characteristics like thin medial wall, lack of lymphatics, orbital foramina, and septic thrombophlebitis of the valveless veins between the two. Other causes are trauma, orbital foreign bodies, preexisting dental infections, dental procedures, maxillofacial surgeries, Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF), and retinal buckling procedures. The septum is a natural barrier to the passage of microorganisms. Orbital infections are caused by Gram-positive, Gram-negative organisms and anaerobes in adults and in children, usually by Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus species. Individuals older than 15 years of age are more likely to harbor polymicrobial infections. Signs include diffuse lid edema with or without erythema, chemosis, proptosis, and ophthalmoplegia. It is an ocular emergency requiring admission, intravenous antibiotics, and sometimes surgical intervention. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the main modalities to identify the extent, route of spread from adjacent structures, and poor response to intravenous antibiotics and to confirm the presence of complications. If orbital cellulitis is secondary to sinus infection, drainage of pus and establishment of ventilation to the sinus are imperative. Loss of vision can occur due to orbital abscess, cavernous sinus thrombosis, optic neuritis, central retinal artery occlusion, and exposure keratopathy, and possible systemic sequelae include meningitis, intracranial abscess, osteomyelitis, and death. The article was written by authors after a thorough literature search in the PubMed-indexed journals.
Topics: Child; Young Adult; Humans; Orbital Cellulitis; Abscess; Orbit; Exophthalmos; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37417106
DOI: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_3283_22 -
Clinical Microbiology Reviews Apr 2013Acute apical abscess is the most common form of dental abscess and is caused by infection of the root canal of the tooth. It is usually localized intraorally, but in... (Review)
Review
Acute apical abscess is the most common form of dental abscess and is caused by infection of the root canal of the tooth. It is usually localized intraorally, but in some cases the apical abscess may spread and result in severe complications or even mortality. The reasons why dental root canal infections can become symptomatic and evolve to severe spreading and sometimes life-threatening abscesses remain elusive. Studies using culture and advanced molecular microbiology methods for microbial identification in apical abscesses have demonstrated a multispecies community conspicuously dominated by anaerobic bacteria. Species/phylotypes commonly found in these infections belong to the genera Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Dialister, Streptococcus, and Treponema. Advances in DNA sequencing technologies and computational biology have substantially enhanced the knowledge of the microbiota associated with acute apical abscesses and shed some light on the etiopathogeny of this disease. Species richness and abundance and the resulting network of interactions among community members may affect the collective pathogenicity and contribute to the development of acute infections. Disease modifiers, including transient or permanent host-related factors, may also influence the development and severity of acute abscesses. This review focuses on the current evidence about the etiology and treatment of acute apical abscesses and how the process is influenced by host-related factors and proposes future directions in research, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches to deal with this disease.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Coinfection; Drainage; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Periapical Abscess
PubMed: 23554416
DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00082-12 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Penicillin V; Periapical Abscess; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothache
PubMed: 30259968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010136.pub3 -
Journal of Periodontology Mar 2009Implant-supported restorations have become the most popular therapeutic option for professionals and patients for the treatment of total and partial edentulism. When... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implant-supported restorations have become the most popular therapeutic option for professionals and patients for the treatment of total and partial edentulism. When implants are placed in an ideal position, with adequate prosthetic loading and proper maintenance, they can have success rates >90% over 15 years of function. Implants may be considered a better therapeutic alternative than performing more extensive conservative procedures in an attempt to save or maintain a compromised tooth. Inadequate indication for tooth extraction has resulted in the sacrifice of many sound savable teeth. This article presents a chart that can assist clinicians in making the right decision when they are deciding which route to take.
METHODS
Articles published in peer-reviewed English journals were selected using several scientific databases and subsequently reviewed. Book sources were also searched. Individual tooth- and patient-related features were thoroughly analyzed, particularly when determining if a tooth should be indicated for extraction.
RESULTS
A color-based decision-making chart with six different levels, including several factors, was developed based upon available scientific literature. The rationale for including these factors is provided, and its interpretation is justified with literature support.
CONCLUSION
The decision-making chart provided may serve as a reference guide for dentists when making the decision to save or extract a compromised tooth.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Attitude to Health; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Databases as Topic; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Decision Trees; Dental Calculus; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Esthetics, Dental; Furcation Defects; Health Status; Humans; Oral Surgical Procedures; Patient Compliance; Periodontal Abscess; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontal Pocket; Post and Core Technique; Retreatment; Review Literature as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Smoking; Tooth Diseases; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Mobility; Tooth Root; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19254132
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080454 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2021Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most adults experience dental caries during their lifetime and the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey reported that 85% of adults have at least one dental restoration. Conservative removal of tooth tissue for both primary and secondary caries reduces the risk of failure due to tooth-restoration, complex fracture as well as remaining tooth surfaces being less vulnerable to further caries. However, despite its prevalence there is no consensus on how much caries to remove prior to placing a restoration to achieve optimal outcomes. Evidence for selective compared to complete or near-complete caries removal suggests there may be benefits for selective removal in sustaining tooth vitality, therefore avoiding abscess formation and pain, so eliminating the need for more complex and costly treatment or eventual tooth loss. However, the evidence is of low scientific quality and mainly gleaned from studies in primary teeth.
METHOD
This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm patient randomised controlled clinical trial including an internal pilot set in primary dental care in Scotland and England. Dental health professionals will recruit 623 participants over 12-years of age with deep carious lesions in their permanent posterior teeth. Participants will have a single tooth randomised to either the selective caries removal or complete caries removal treatment arm. Baseline measures and outcome data (during the 3-year follow-up period) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. A mixed-method process evaluation will complement the clinical and economic outcome evaluation and examine implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. The primary outcome at three years is sustained tooth vitality. The primary economic outcome is net benefit modelled over a lifetime horizon. Clinical secondary outcomes include pulp exposure, progession of caries, restoration failure; as well as patient-centred and economic outcomes.
DISCUSSION
SCRiPT will provide evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-beneficial approach to managing deep carious lesions in permanent posterior teeth in primary care. This will support general dental practitioners, patients and policy makers in decision making. Trial Registration Trial registry: ISRCTN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ISRCTN76503940. Date of Registration: 30.10.2019. URL of trial registry record: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76503940?q=ISRCTN76503940%20&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search .
Topics: Adult; Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dentists; England; Humans; Primary Health Care; Professional Role; Quality of Life; Scotland; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 34243733
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01637-6 -
Journal of the American Dental... Nov 2019An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and...
Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling: A report from the American Dental Association.
BACKGROUND
An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework.
RESULTS
The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high.
CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.
Topics: Adult; American Dental Association; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Periapical Abscess; Toothache
PubMed: 31668170
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.08.020 -
Journal of the American Dental... Dec 2019Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antibiotics for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, symptomatic apical periodontitis, and localized acute apical abscess: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.
BACKGROUND
Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.
Topics: Abscess; Adult; American Dental Association; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 31761029
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.09.011