Evidence Hub

A comparative study of amoxicillin, clindamycin and chlorhexidine in the prevention of post-extraction bacteraemia

Maharaj B, Coovadia Y, Vayej AC

Cardiovascular journal of Africa, 2012

160 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

We evaluated some of the regimens recommended for the antimicrobial prophylaxis of infective endocarditis prior to dental extraction in 160 patients. Group A patients served as the control group, group B subjects rinsed their mouths with chlorhexidene, group C subjects took 3 g amoxicillin orally and group D patients took 600 mg clindamycin orally. The proportion of patients who had post-extraction bacteraemia in groups A, B, C and D was 35, 40, 7.5 and 20%, respectively. The differences between the control and amoxicillin groups (p = 0.003) and between the chlorhexidine and amoxicillin groups (p = 0.0006) were statistically significant. Streptococci were not isolated in any patients in the amoxicillin and clindamycin groups. In our study, none of the regimens were effective in preventing post-extraction bacteraemia.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 160 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free