Fabio Rodríguez Sánchez1, Carlos Rodríguez Andrés2, Iciar Arteagoitia Calvo3. 1. Master of Dentistry, Private Practitioner, Steenwijk, Netherlands. Electronic address: rs.fabio8@gmail.com. 2. Department Head and Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). 3. Associate Professor of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU); Member, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, BioCruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) in dental extractions remains a controversial issue. Chlorhexidine is one of the most widely studied antiseptics for the prevention of AO. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of AO after third molar extractions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched databases and the references of each article retrieved up to December 2015. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using only chlorhexidine were included. The predictor variable was whether chlorhexidine was used in any formulation, concentration, or regimen. The outcome measurement was the incidence of postoperative AO. The authors also recorded variables describing the characteristics of the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 12.0. Meta-analysis of binary data was conducted using a fixed-effects model. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Forest, l'Abbé, and funnel plots were constructed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies published from 1979 to 2015, corresponding to 18 trials (16 parallel-group and 2 split-mouth RCTs), that reported on 2,824 third molar extractions (1,458 in experimental group and 1,366 in control group) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P < .0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 9.3%; P = .336 by χ2 test). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% CI, 7-11). There were no relevant differences between chlorhexidine rinse (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71) and gel (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60). Chlorhexidine did not cause a larger proportion of adverse reactions than placebo. CONCLUSION: The use of chlorhexidine, in any formulation, concentration, or regimen, is efficacious and effective in preventing AO in patients who have undergone third molar extraction. Chlorhexidine gel was found to be moderately more efficacious than the rinse formulation.
PURPOSE: The prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) in dental extractions remains a controversial issue. Chlorhexidine is one of the most widely studied antiseptics for the prevention of AO. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of AO after third molar extractions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched databases and the references of each article retrieved up to December 2015. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using only chlorhexidine were included. The predictor variable was whether chlorhexidine was used in any formulation, concentration, or regimen. The outcome measurement was the incidence of postoperative AO. The authors also recorded variables describing the characteristics of the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 12.0. Meta-analysis of binary data was conducted using a fixed-effects model. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Forest, l'Abbé, and funnel plots were constructed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies published from 1979 to 2015, corresponding to 18 trials (16 parallel-group and 2 split-mouth RCTs), that reported on 2,824 third molar extractions (1,458 in experimental group and 1,366 in control group) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P < .0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 9.3%; P = .336 by χ2 test). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% CI, 7-11). There were no relevant differences between chlorhexidine rinse (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71) and gel (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60). Chlorhexidine did not cause a larger proportion of adverse reactions than placebo. CONCLUSION: The use of chlorhexidine, in any formulation, concentration, or regimen, is efficacious and effective in preventing AO in patients who have undergone third molar extraction. Chlorhexidine gel was found to be moderately more efficacious than the rinse formulation.
Authors: Samuel Rodríguez Zorrilla; Andrés Blanco Carrión; Abel García García; Pablo Galindo Moreno; Xabier Marichalar Mendía; Rafael Seoane Prado; Antonio J Pérez Estévez; Mario Pérez-Sayáns Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.379