Is it necessary to prescribe antibiotics in impacted third molar surgical removal?: comparative study between prescribing patterns
ISABEL IZUZQUIZA, KENT ARE JAMTØY, NILS PETTER FOSSLAND, IRENE MARTÍNEZ-PADILLA, FARZIN FALAHAT, LUIS ALOU, JOSÉ PRIETO, MARÍA LUISA GÓMEZ-LUSO
Objective. To assess whether there is a significant difference in infection rate after surgery tooth extraction in two different hospitals from Norway and Spain where different surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis protocols are applied.
Methods. An analytical observational study was conducted, retrospective cohorts type, analyzing healthy patients with no risk factors, who were third molar tooth operated in maxillofacial services of two different hospitals: St. Olav in Trondheim (Norway) and Clínico San Carlos in Madrid (Spain). The collected variables were: age, number of tooth removed, anesthesia type, and observations about the course of the operation registered in the clinical history. To assess the development of postoperative infection, patient’s data of those who chose the hospital as the place to remove the suture thread were collected in Norway, whereas in Spain a telephone survey was conducted to determine the course of the operation months later.
Results. In St. Olav Hospital 11.1% of patients operated received antibiotic regimen after surgery, while in Hospital San Carlos were 100%. The infection rate was 15% in St.Olav Hospital and 7.5% in Hospital San Carlos. These differences were no statistically significant.
Conclusions. The routine administration of antibiotics to healthy patients with no risk factors undergoing impacted third molar surgical removal is a common clinical practice which it does not seem to be justified.
Rev Esp Quimioter 2017; 30(1):34-39 [pdf]