Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600 mg), total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling vs Matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling: Analgesic (painkiller) use
- Population
- Adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis (no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement)
- Intervention
- Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600 mg), total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling
- Comparison
- Matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling
- Outcome
- Analgesic (painkiller) use
Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600… showed no clear difference in analgesic use compared with matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600 mg), total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling vs Matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling Analgesic use · Adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis (no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement) · 7 days Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600… showed no clear difference in analgesic use compared with matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling; GRADE not reported. Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults (2024) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.87 [0.48, 1.55] | 1 study · 72 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2022-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.