Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia

[Abstract] Prophylactic antibiotic administration aims to maintain the postoperative wound environment. It is difficult to select appropriate prophylactic antibiotics to minimize the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of complications. The purpose of this study was to co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Odontology 2020-10, Vol.108 (4), p.681-687
Hauptverfasser: Iguchi, Ran, Moroi, Akinori, Saito, Yuki, Takayama, Akihiro, Hiraide, Ryota, Yoshizawa, Kunio, Ueki, Koichiro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 687
container_issue 4
container_start_page 681
container_title Odontology
container_volume 108
creator Iguchi, Ran
Moroi, Akinori
Saito, Yuki
Takayama, Akihiro
Hiraide, Ryota
Yoshizawa, Kunio
Ueki, Koichiro
description [Abstract] Prophylactic antibiotic administration aims to maintain the postoperative wound environment. It is difficult to select appropriate prophylactic antibiotics to minimize the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the prophylactic effect of narrow spectrum antibiotics (cefazolin) with that of wide spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin) in preventing infection following third molar extraction. In addition, the effect of postoperative cefazolin administration was examined. This retrospective study included 350 patients who underwent third molar removal under general anesthesia. The patients were divided into three subgroups : preoperative cefazolin (N = 122), pre- and postoperative cefazolin (N = 101), and pre- and postoperative piperacillin (N = 127). The patients in the piperacillin group were administered the antibiotic preoperatively and postoperatively for 3 days. The patients in the preoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively only. The patients in the pre- and postoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively and postoperatively for 1 day. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were identified based on the Clavien-Dindo 30-day postoperative classification. There was a significant difference among the three groups of patients who had third molars classified as position C using the Pell and Gregory classification, according to the degree of impaction of the impacted third molar (P=0.015). Our analysis showed that the number of SSI did not significantly differ between the three antibiotic treatment groups (P = 0.671). These results suggest that preoperative administration of cefazolin is as effective as postoperative administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as piperacillin.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2353016496</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2435545984</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-e94e0c852afbac82d1aa2fae1db3ec08fff1ac19e1d121a8d3158af3e03a83003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtr3TAQhU1oSUKaP9BFMXTTjdMZPWx5WUKaBALdtGsxlqV7VXylW8kOyb-vcp0HdNGNRkjnOzPSqaqPCBcI0H3NCKxtG2DQAIieNXhUnWKLqkEm5bvXvehOqvOc_QCCIUKH8rg64Qx4Kzp-Wtmre5oWmn0MdXS1D3Oiexvikut9ivvt40QPPtcUZj_4OHuTaxdTPW99GutdnCjV9qEw5uCwhNGmemODTTQVyOZ5a7OnD9V7R1O258_1rPr1_ern5U1z9-P69vLbXWMk6-fG9sKCUZKRG8goNiIRc2RxHLg1oJxzSAb7coAMSY0cpSLHLXBSHICfVV9W3zL7n6V01zufjZ2mMkp5kmZccsBW9G2Rfv5H-jsuKZTpNBNcSiF7JYqKrSqTYs7JOr1PfkfpUSPopxz0moMuOehDDhoL9OnZehl2dnxFXn69CPgqyOUqbGx66_1f2-uVKp7e0BTD5IN9Q80G4xjDrNmBQlAgSuk1tAqflo63xVsp_hduUKt4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2435545984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Iguchi, Ran ; Moroi, Akinori ; Saito, Yuki ; Takayama, Akihiro ; Hiraide, Ryota ; Yoshizawa, Kunio ; Ueki, Koichiro</creator><creatorcontrib>Iguchi, Ran ; Moroi, Akinori ; Saito, Yuki ; Takayama, Akihiro ; Hiraide, Ryota ; Yoshizawa, Kunio ; Ueki, Koichiro ; Graduate School Department of Interdisciplinary Research ; Division of Clinical Medicine ; Department of Health Sciences ; University of Yamanashi ; Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Division of Medicine ; Basic Science for Clinical Medicine</creatorcontrib><description>[Abstract] Prophylactic antibiotic administration aims to maintain the postoperative wound environment. It is difficult to select appropriate prophylactic antibiotics to minimize the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the prophylactic effect of narrow spectrum antibiotics (cefazolin) with that of wide spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin) in preventing infection following third molar extraction. In addition, the effect of postoperative cefazolin administration was examined. This retrospective study included 350 patients who underwent third molar removal under general anesthesia. The patients were divided into three subgroups : preoperative cefazolin (N = 122), pre- and postoperative cefazolin (N = 101), and pre- and postoperative piperacillin (N = 127). The patients in the piperacillin group were administered the antibiotic preoperatively and postoperatively for 3 days. The patients in the preoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively only. The patients in the pre- and postoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively and postoperatively for 1 day. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were identified based on the Clavien-Dindo 30-day postoperative classification. There was a significant difference among the three groups of patients who had third molars classified as position C using the Pell and Gregory classification, according to the degree of impaction of the impacted third molar (P=0.015). Our analysis showed that the number of SSI did not significantly differ between the three antibiotic treatment groups (P = 0.671). These results suggest that preoperative administration of cefazolin is as effective as postoperative administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as piperacillin.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1618-1247</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-1255</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32036473</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Singapore: The Society of the Nippon Dental University</publisher><subject>Anesthesia ; Antibiotic resistance ; Antibiotics ; Cefazolin ; Classification ; Dentistry ; General anesthesia ; Intravenous administration ; Medicine ; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Original Article ; Piperacillin ; Prophylaxis ; Surgical site infections ; Teeth</subject><ispartof>Odontology, 2020-10, Vol.108 (4), p.681-687</ispartof><rights>The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2020</rights><rights>The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-e94e0c852afbac82d1aa2fae1db3ec08fff1ac19e1d121a8d3158af3e03a83003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-e94e0c852afbac82d1aa2fae1db3ec08fff1ac19e1d121a8d3158af3e03a83003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32036473$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Iguchi, Ran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moroi, Akinori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saito, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takayama, Akihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiraide, Ryota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizawa, Kunio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ueki, Koichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graduate School Department of Interdisciplinary Research</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Clinical Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Health Sciences</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>University of Yamanashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Basic Science for Clinical Medicine</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia</title><title>Odontology</title><addtitle>Odontology</addtitle><addtitle>Odontology</addtitle><description>[Abstract] Prophylactic antibiotic administration aims to maintain the postoperative wound environment. It is difficult to select appropriate prophylactic antibiotics to minimize the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the prophylactic effect of narrow spectrum antibiotics (cefazolin) with that of wide spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin) in preventing infection following third molar extraction. In addition, the effect of postoperative cefazolin administration was examined. This retrospective study included 350 patients who underwent third molar removal under general anesthesia. The patients were divided into three subgroups : preoperative cefazolin (N = 122), pre- and postoperative cefazolin (N = 101), and pre- and postoperative piperacillin (N = 127). The patients in the piperacillin group were administered the antibiotic preoperatively and postoperatively for 3 days. The patients in the preoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively only. The patients in the pre- and postoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively and postoperatively for 1 day. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were identified based on the Clavien-Dindo 30-day postoperative classification. There was a significant difference among the three groups of patients who had third molars classified as position C using the Pell and Gregory classification, according to the degree of impaction of the impacted third molar (P=0.015). Our analysis showed that the number of SSI did not significantly differ between the three antibiotic treatment groups (P = 0.671). These results suggest that preoperative administration of cefazolin is as effective as postoperative administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as piperacillin.</description><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Antibiotic resistance</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Cefazolin</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>General anesthesia</subject><subject>Intravenous administration</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Piperacillin</subject><subject>Prophylaxis</subject><subject>Surgical site infections</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><issn>1618-1247</issn><issn>1618-1255</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kUtr3TAQhU1oSUKaP9BFMXTTjdMZPWx5WUKaBALdtGsxlqV7VXylW8kOyb-vcp0HdNGNRkjnOzPSqaqPCBcI0H3NCKxtG2DQAIieNXhUnWKLqkEm5bvXvehOqvOc_QCCIUKH8rg64Qx4Kzp-Wtmre5oWmn0MdXS1D3Oiexvikut9ivvt40QPPtcUZj_4OHuTaxdTPW99GutdnCjV9qEw5uCwhNGmemODTTQVyOZ5a7OnD9V7R1O258_1rPr1_ern5U1z9-P69vLbXWMk6-fG9sKCUZKRG8goNiIRc2RxHLg1oJxzSAb7coAMSY0cpSLHLXBSHICfVV9W3zL7n6V01zufjZ2mMkp5kmZccsBW9G2Rfv5H-jsuKZTpNBNcSiF7JYqKrSqTYs7JOr1PfkfpUSPopxz0moMuOehDDhoL9OnZehl2dnxFXn69CPgqyOUqbGx66_1f2-uVKp7e0BTD5IN9Q80G4xjDrNmBQlAgSuk1tAqflo63xVsp_hduUKt4</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Iguchi, Ran</creator><creator>Moroi, Akinori</creator><creator>Saito, Yuki</creator><creator>Takayama, Akihiro</creator><creator>Hiraide, Ryota</creator><creator>Yoshizawa, Kunio</creator><creator>Ueki, Koichiro</creator><general>The Society of the Nippon Dental University</general><general>Springer Singapore</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia</title><author>Iguchi, Ran ; Moroi, Akinori ; Saito, Yuki ; Takayama, Akihiro ; Hiraide, Ryota ; Yoshizawa, Kunio ; Ueki, Koichiro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-e94e0c852afbac82d1aa2fae1db3ec08fff1ac19e1d121a8d3158af3e03a83003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Antibiotic resistance</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Cefazolin</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>General anesthesia</topic><topic>Intravenous administration</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Piperacillin</topic><topic>Prophylaxis</topic><topic>Surgical site infections</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Iguchi, Ran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moroi, Akinori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saito, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takayama, Akihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiraide, Ryota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizawa, Kunio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ueki, Koichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graduate School Department of Interdisciplinary Research</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Clinical Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Health Sciences</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>University of Yamanashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Division of Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Basic Science for Clinical Medicine</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Odontology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Iguchi, Ran</au><au>Moroi, Akinori</au><au>Saito, Yuki</au><au>Takayama, Akihiro</au><au>Hiraide, Ryota</au><au>Yoshizawa, Kunio</au><au>Ueki, Koichiro</au><aucorp>Graduate School Department of Interdisciplinary Research</aucorp><aucorp>Division of Clinical Medicine</aucorp><aucorp>Department of Health Sciences</aucorp><aucorp>University of Yamanashi</aucorp><aucorp>Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research</aucorp><aucorp>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</aucorp><aucorp>Division of Medicine</aucorp><aucorp>Basic Science for Clinical Medicine</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia</atitle><jtitle>Odontology</jtitle><stitle>Odontology</stitle><addtitle>Odontology</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>681</spage><epage>687</epage><pages>681-687</pages><issn>1618-1247</issn><eissn>1618-1255</eissn><abstract>[Abstract] Prophylactic antibiotic administration aims to maintain the postoperative wound environment. It is difficult to select appropriate prophylactic antibiotics to minimize the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the prophylactic effect of narrow spectrum antibiotics (cefazolin) with that of wide spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin) in preventing infection following third molar extraction. In addition, the effect of postoperative cefazolin administration was examined. This retrospective study included 350 patients who underwent third molar removal under general anesthesia. The patients were divided into three subgroups : preoperative cefazolin (N = 122), pre- and postoperative cefazolin (N = 101), and pre- and postoperative piperacillin (N = 127). The patients in the piperacillin group were administered the antibiotic preoperatively and postoperatively for 3 days. The patients in the preoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively only. The patients in the pre- and postoperative cefazolin group were administered cefazolin preoperatively and postoperatively for 1 day. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were identified based on the Clavien-Dindo 30-day postoperative classification. There was a significant difference among the three groups of patients who had third molars classified as position C using the Pell and Gregory classification, according to the degree of impaction of the impacted third molar (P=0.015). Our analysis showed that the number of SSI did not significantly differ between the three antibiotic treatment groups (P = 0.671). These results suggest that preoperative administration of cefazolin is as effective as postoperative administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as piperacillin.</abstract><cop>Singapore</cop><pub>The Society of the Nippon Dental University</pub><pmid>32036473</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1618-1247
ispartof Odontology, 2020-10, Vol.108 (4), p.681-687
issn 1618-1247
1618-1255
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2353016496
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Anesthesia
Antibiotic resistance
Antibiotics
Cefazolin
Classification
Dentistry
General anesthesia
Intravenous administration
Medicine
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Original Article
Piperacillin
Prophylaxis
Surgical site infections
Teeth
title Evaluation of intravenous prophylaxis antibiotics for third molar extraction under general anesthesia
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T05%3A08%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20intravenous%20prophylaxis%20antibiotics%20for%20third%20molar%20extraction%20under%20general%20anesthesia&rft.jtitle=Odontology&rft.au=Iguchi,%20Ran&rft.aucorp=Graduate%20School%20Department%20of%20Interdisciplinary%20Research&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=681&rft.epage=687&rft.pages=681-687&rft.issn=1618-1247&rft.eissn=1618-1255&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10266-020-00492-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2435545984%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2435545984&rft_id=info:pmid/32036473&rfr_iscdi=true