Is antibiotics overuse justified when immediate intervention is not possible? A rapid evidence review
Introduction: This review revisits clinical use of antibiotics for most common acute oro-dental conditions; we aim to provide evidence governing antibiotics use when access to oral healthcare is not available, as during the ongoing outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2....
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Pensoft Publishers
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/3a4b2be111864986836f42f1e088706b |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Introduction: This review revisits clinical use of antibiotics for most common acute oro-dental conditions; we aim to provide evidence governing antibiotics use when access to oral healthcare is not available, as during the ongoing outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Materials and methods: In this rapid review, articles were retrieved after conducting a search on PubMed and Google Scholar. Relevant publications were selected and analyzed. Most recent systematic reviews with/without meta-analyses and societal guidelines were selected. Data were extracted, grouped, and synthesized according to the respective subtopic analysis. Results and discussion: There was evidence supporting the use of antibiotics in common oro-dental conditions as temporary measure when immediate care is not accessible, such as in case of localized oral swellings as well as to prevent post-extraction complications. No sufficient evidence could be found in support of antibiotic use for pain resulting from pulpal origin. Conclusion: Antibiotic use may be justified to defer treatment temporarily or reduce risk of complications in case of localized infection and tooth extraction, when no access to immediate dental care is possible. Graphical abstract: |
|---|