
by Jay B. Reznick, DMD, MD
A question that comes up very frequently in my courses and
in discussions with dentists is the topic of placing patients on
antibiotics when they need a tooth extracted. Just like anything
we do in dentistry, there is not a single answer to this question.
The best answer I can think of is… "it depends!"
The first question has to do with why the tooth is being
removed. Is the tooth acutely or chronically infected? If we are
dealing with a tooth that recently fractured and there is no evidence
of infection, and if we are simply removing the tooth with
no plan to replace it, then antibiotics serve no purpose. The same
goes for routine removal of healthy teeth for orthodontic purposes
or for the removal of non-pathologic third molars. In these
cases, prophylactic antibiotics do not significantly reduce the risk
of post-operative infection and increase the likelihood that, if a
post-operative infection does develop, it might be resistant to the
first-line antibiotics we normally use for treating dental infections.
So, in this scenario, the risks outweigh the benefits.
Now if the tooth is infected, we need to know whether the
infection is confined to the periodontal ligament (PDL) space
or whether the infection has spread into the bone or soft tissues.
If the infection is limited to the PDL space, then generally,
removal of the offending tooth is all that is necessary. However,
if the infection has spread to the bone, and especially into the
soft tissues, then the benefits of treating with antibiotics will
outweigh the risks. Generally for infected primary teeth with a
moderate amount of root resorption, even with a small area of
soft tissue swelling, removal of the tooth alone will suffice. This
is because the infection is relatively superficial in the alveolus.
There is an old wives' tale in dentistry that says that an
acutely infected tooth cannot be removed without placing the
patient on antibiotics first, in order to "cool down the infection"
before extraction. This is a bunch of rubbish, as it is the necrotic
tooth that is the source of the infection, and until it is removed
the infection will not resolve. It is like having an infected splinter
in your finger. The treatment is not antibiotics; it is removal
of the foreign body. The antibiotic is just an adjunct to help
resolve the spread of the infection. So, if feasible, the tooth
should be removed immediately and post-operative antibiotics
prescribed as recommended above. It is also not a bad idea to
give a loading dose of the antibiotic prior to removing the tooth.
But, notice I said "if feasible" because sometimes theory and
clinical practice clash. In other words, in addition to wanting to
get the patient back to health, we also want our patients to like
us. We learn from experience that local anesthetics do not work well in infected environments. The lower pH in infected regions
reduces the efficacy of the anesthetic drug. It might not be possible
to remove the offending tooth without causing the patient
great discomfort, which is something we all would like to avoid.
We would like the patient to return for their next visit and to
maybe refer a friend or two.
This is especially true when dealing with an endodontically
treated lower molar, for example. As long as it does not place the
patient at risk, rather than immediately extracting the tooth I
will sometimes place the patient on antibiotics and then schedule
them to return for the extraction in a day or two when I
know that I will be able to get more profound local anesthesia
(or in my practice, do the procedure under general anesthesia).
If there is a fluctuant swelling, I might elect to do an incision
and drainage procedure at that initial appointment in order to
make the patient more comfortable and prevent further
swelling, abscess formation and spread of infection. It also
reminds them that they need to return to you for definitive
treatment. This goes a long way to be able to provide a positive
experience for the patient, rather than one they would like to
forget about. In the maxilla, it is generally easier to get adequate
local anesthesia, especially when using articaine for infiltration.
So, that might make immediate removal of the tooth a more
likely scenario.
A specific dental infection that earns its own category is
pericoronitis. With most odontogenic infections, it is the diseased
tooth that is the source of the infection, so the primary
goal of treatment is to remove that source either by extraction
or endodontic therapy. With pericoronitis, it is not the tooth
itself, but rather the surrounding soft tissue operculum that
is the problem. The tooth is generally vital and otherwise
healthy. With this clinical entity, immediate removal of the
tooth is the worst thing to do. It is imperative that the patient
be placed first on antibiotics and the infection brought under
control with the help of local measures, such as frequent
saline rinses and irrigation under the operculum
with an irrigating syringe. This is because manipulation
of the tooth right away will most likely result in
spread of the infection through the soft tissues and
possibly to the lateral pharyngeal and retropharyngeal
spaces. This can lead to a serious medical situation
where hospitalization might be necessary and the airway
might be compromised. Depending on the severity
of the infection, I will have the patient on one to
three days of antibiotic treatment before scheduling for
removal of the offending tooth. It is also acceptable
to use laser or electrocautery to remove or reduce
the operculum initially, to make the patient more
comfortable and make the area easier to irrigate.
But this is only a very temporary measure before
the tooth is removed. In very severe cases, where the patient has
notable trismus, difficulty swallowing, airway compromise or
appears toxic, hospital admission, intravenous antibiotics and
immediate surgical management is in order. Luckily, this is a
rare event.
So far, I have been discussing how to manage these clinical
situations in relatively healthy young patients. Throw in some
medical complications and we have to modify our treatment
plan. Generally, in older patients I tend to be more cautious.
The capacity to fight an infection diminishes with age. A
patient in their 20s or 30s with an acute dental abscess confined
to the socket will do just fine after the tooth is removed,
but I have seen quite a number of patients in their 70s and 80s
who returned with problematic infections after the same treatment.
So, my bias now is to cover all older patients with antibiotics
peri-operatively, even with seemingly minor dental
infections. The same holds true for patients with diabetes. In
dental school and residency we were told that non-insulin
dependent diabetics could be managed just like any other
healthy patient. My experience from clinical practice is that
they are also at increased risk of problems, just like a poorly controlled
insulin-dependent patient, although to a lesser
extent. Again, in my practice, this group also gets peri-operative
antibiotic coverage as a routine.
The answer to this simple question is not so simple. The
bottom line is management of a surgical problem requires the
clinician to "think like a surgeon" (see my column in the
March 2009 issue of Dentaltown Magazine) in order to provide
the best care for the patient. Not only does the clinical situation
need to be analyzed, all the patient variables need to be
considered in deciding management. For the clinician who
needs help in sorting all this out, assistance is no further than
a phone call to a local oral surgeon, or the pages of the
Dentaltown.com Oral Surgery forum.
|