Antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of dry socket and surgical site infection after lower third molar extraction: a network meta-analysis.

Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.

Bone regeneration in diabetic patients. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Oral bone regeneration techniques (OBRT) attempt to provide the appropriate bone volume and density to correctly accomplish dental implant treatments. The objective was to determine whether differences exist in the clinical outcomes of these techniques between diabetic and non-diabetic patients, considering the level of scientific evidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA statements was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases with the search terms: "Diabetes Mellitus", "guided bone regeneration", "bone regeneration", "alveolar ridge augmentation", "ridge augmentation", bone graft*, "sinus floor augmentation", "sinus floor elevation", "sinus lift", implant*. Articles were limited to those published less than 10 years ago and in English. Inclusion criteria were: human studies of all bone regeneration techniques, including at least 10 patients and the using OBRT in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Non-human studies were excluded. They were stratified according to their level of scientific evidence related to SORT criteria (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy). RESULTS: The initial search provided 131 articles, after reading the abstracts a total of 33 relevant articles were selected to read the full text and analyzed to decide eligibility. Finally, seven of them accomplished the inclusion criteria: two controlled clinical trials, one cohort study and four case series. CONCLUSIONS: A low grade of evidence regarding the use of OBRT in diabetic patients was found. The recommendation for this intervention in diabetic patients is considered type C due to the high heterogeneity of the type of diabetic patients included and the variability of the techniques applied.