Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: A complex systematic review

  • Aron Naimi-Akbar ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    aron.naimi-akbar@ki.se

    Affiliations Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden, Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Cariology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Margareta Hultin,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Periodontology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Anna Klinge,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Malmo University, Malmo, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Björn Klinge,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Periodontology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, Department of Periodontology, Malmo University, Malmo, Sweden, Health Technology Assessment-Odontology (HTA-O), Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Sofia Tranæus,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Cariology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, Health Technology Assessment-Odontology (HTA-O), Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Bodil Lund

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden, Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostics and Surgery, Section of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    ⨯

Abstract

Objective

In orthognathic surgery, antibiotics are prescribed to reduce the risk of postoperative infection. However, there is lack of consensus over the appropriate drug, the dose and duration of administration. The aim of this complex systematic review was to assess the effect of antibiotics on postoperative infections in orthognathic surgery.

Methods

Both systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed. Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE (embase.com), PubMed (non-indexed articles) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publications were searched. The primary studies were assessed using GRADE and the systematic reviews by AMSTAR.

Results

Screening of abstracts yielded 6 systematic reviews and 36 primary studies warranting full text scrutiny. In total,14 primary studies were assessed for risk of bias. Assessment of the included systematic reviews identified two studies with a moderate risk of bias, due to inclusion in the meta-analyses of primary studies with a high risk of bias. Quality assessment of the primary studies disclosed one with a moderate risk of bias and one with a low risk. The former compared a single dose of antibiotic with 24 hour prophylaxis using the same antibiotic; the latter compared oral and intravenous administration of antibiotics. Given the limited number of acceptable studies, no statistical analysis was undertaken, as it was unlikely to contribute any relevant information.

Conclusion

With respect to antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery, most of the studies to date have been poorly conducted and reported. Thus scientific uncertainty remains as to the preferred antibiotic and the optimal duration of administration.

Citation: Naimi-Akbar A, Hultin M, Klinge A, Klinge B, Tranæus S, Lund B (2018) Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: A complex systematic review. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0191161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161

Editor: Gururaj Arakeri, Navodaya Dental College and Hospital, INDIA

Received: May 23, 2017; Accepted: December 31, 2017; Published: January 31, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Naimi-Akbar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of postoperative infection after orthognathic surgery is a broadly accepted practice. However, there is lack of consensus with respect to the preferred antibiotic and the dose and duration of administration: the available primary and composite data are contradictory[1–4]. Because of increasing antibiotic resistance, it is important to assess the potential benefits and risks associated with administration of antibiotics. The outcomes of numerous treatment procedures are dependent on effective infection control and treatment, hence antibiotic resistance poses a major threat to modern healthcare,[5]. In some geographic areas antibiotics can no longer be relied on, indicating a post-antibiotic era[6]. The development of antibiotic resistance is closely related to the extent of prescription and rational antibiotic usage is an increasingly important preventive measure [7–9]. The benefit of restrictive antibiotic policies is also evident in low consumption environments, where the levels of resistance are relatively low [10]. It has been shown that short- term use of antibiotics, even a single dose, may select for resistant viridans streptococci. Thus short- term utilisation, such as antibiotic prophylaxis, also needs to be reassessed[11, 12].

A literature review on antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery conducted by The Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU) concluded that prolonging antibiotic prophylaxis beyond the day of surgery provides no further benefit [13]. Whether this also applies to orthognathic surgery has not been determined.

Systematic reviews evaluate and summarize the state of knowledge on a defined topic. The methodology is strictly defined, with a reproducible literature search, independent literature analyses and meticulous statistical calculations [14–16]. Failure to adhere to the recommended approach may have untoward consequences: an incorrect conclusion may be drawn, giving the impression of solid evidence. Therefore assessment of primary studies as well as systematic reviews is equally important [17, 18]. A complex systematic review involves quality assessment not only of systematic reviews, but also of the original research. This approach is recommended where reviews published to date show inconsistent results [19].

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of short- and long-term antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery, by means of a complex systematic review of the available scientific literature.

Material and methods

Objective

The objective of the study was to assess the effect of antibiotics on postoperative infections in orthognathic surgery.

Criteria for eligible studies

Studies considered eligible for inclusion in this literature review were randomised controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the outcome of orthognathic surgery undertaken with or without antibiotic cover (no treatment, or placebo). Studies comparing two different antibiotic protocols, or comparing antibiotics with alternative treatments, such as antibacterial rinsing, were also accepted. Exclusion criteria for systematic reviews were a more recent systematic review available by same author, non-systematic review, guidelines, letters, position papers, and consensus statements. Table 1 presents a summary of the predefined study population, intervention, comparison of therapies and the outcome parameters in the eligible studies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Parameters of interest in eligible studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t001

Search strategies

The initial literature search was undertaken by two of the authors (ANA and AK) and two information specialists at the Karolinska Institutet University Library. The following databases were searched up to October 20, 2015: Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE (embase.com), PubMed (non-indexed articles). The search terms used for the various databases are summarised in Table 2. The search was initially unfiltered, for the primary studies, then repeated, with a filter, for systematic reviews. Publications by the following Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations were searched until October 30, 2015, for projects evaluating the outcome on orthognathic surgery of administration of antibiotics versus no treatment or placebo treatment: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/; CADTH, http://www.cadth.ca/; CRD database (contains reviews from INAHTA, Cochrane, CRD and NIHR), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/; Kunnskapssenteret, http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/home?language=english; ASERNIP-S http://www.surgeons.org/for-health-professionals/audits-and-surgical-research/asernip-s/publications/.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t002

The reference lists of all the eligible studies were hand-searched for potential complementary trials. Although there was no restriction according to language, retrieved papers in a language other than English were excluded. In order to detect more recent publications, complementary searches were undertaken in PubMed on November 24, 2016 and again on October 31, 2017. These additional searches did not use any filters and all new findings from both primary studies as well as systematic reviews were screened.

Study selection

Eligible studies were selected according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. ANA (first author) then screened the retrieved list, for initial exclusion of irrelevant publications, based on title. In case of uncertainty, a study was retained until the next selection step: examination of abstracts. The abstracts were read independently, in duplicate, by three reviewers, BL, AK and ST or MH, ANA and BK. Selected primary studies and systematic reviews were read in full-text, in duplicate, by three reviewers each, respectively. Any disagreement during the screening process was resolved by discussion in the project group. Studies excluded at this stage, and the reason for exclusion, were recorded.

Quality assessment

Systematic reviews (SR).

The level of bias for systematic reviews was assessed by AMSTAR [20–22]. The reviews were classified as having low, moderate or high risk of bias according to the criteria shown in Table 3.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Criteria for low, moderate and high risk of bias according to Mejàre, 2015, based on AMSTAR assessment items.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t003

Primary studies.

The quality of the included primary studies was assessed according to a protocol for assessment of randomized studies [23].

Quality of evidence

The scientific quality of the evidence in the primary studies was graded according to GRADE, as high, moderate, low, and very low [24], Table 4.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Significance of the four levels of evidence.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t004

Data extraction

Systematic reviews.

Data extracted from the systematic reviews covered objectives, main results, authors’ estimated level of evidence, and knowledgegaps according to authors.

Primary studies.

The following data were extracted from the primary studies: number of patients included, age, gender distribution, length of follow-up, type of intervention and type of control treatment and relevant treatment outcomes.

Assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity (primary studies)

Not applicable: there were insufficient studies for meta-analysis.

Results

Literature search and study selection

The search for systematic reviews yielded 50 articles: 43 remained after exclusion of duplicates. The search strategy for primary studies yielded 470 articles: after exclusion of duplicates, 372 remained. The number of studies retrieved from each data base search is shown in Table 2. The search of publications by HTA organisations failed to identify any further studies. Flow-charts of the screening process for systematic reviews and primary studies are described in Figs 1 and 2, respectively.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chart, systematic reviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Flow chart, primary studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.g002

The additional search on November 24, 2016 added 56 new articles and the search on October 31, 2017 added 38 new articles: all were screened for both systematic reviews and primary studies.

Systematic reviews.

Screening of abstracts yielded six SR warranting retrieval of the fulltext for scrutiny. The additional searches did not yield any further systematic reviews for inclusion.

Primary studies.

In all, 36 primary studies were read in full-text, 23 of which were excluded, leaving 13primary studies eligible for quality assessment. Table 5 presents primary studies read in full text but then excluded from quality assessment, along with the reason for exclusion. The additional search on November 24, 2016 yielded one more study to undergo quality assessment. Thus in all, 14 studies were assessed.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Excluded primary studies read in full text.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t005

Quality assessment and data extraction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

The quality assessment of the included systematic reviews identified two studies assessed as having a moderate risk of bias because of the inclusion in the meta-analyses of primary studies at high or unclear risk of bias [1, 25], see Table 6. Four systematic reviews were considered to be at high risk of bias [2, 3, 26, 27] (Table 7). The main shortcomings were inadequate consideration of quality assessment when formulating conclusions (n = 4), inadequate or unclear search strategy (n = 3), failure to include the characteristics and results of included studies (n = 3), study selection and data extraction had not been undertaken by two independent reviewers (n = 2), and failure to account for included and excluded studies (n = 2). No studies were considered to be at low risk of bias.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Systematic reviews at moderate risk of bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t006

thumbnail
Download:
Table 7. Systematic reviews excluded due to high risk of bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t007

Quality assessment and data extraction of primary studies

The quality assessment identified one study with a moderate risk of bias [28] (Lindeboom et al. 2003) and one with a low risk of bias [29] (Tan et al. 2011). A high risk of bias was found in 12 studies. The study with a moderate risk of bias compared a single dose of antibiotic with 24 hour prophylaxis using the same compound. The study with a low risk of bias compared oral and intravenous administration of antibiotics (Table 8). The type of intervention and study population characteristics in studies classified as being at low or moderate risk of bias are shown in Table 8. The most common reason for high risk of bias was a poorly described, unclear randomization process (Table 9). Table 9 shows the eligible studies excluded due to a high risk of bias. The outcomes of the included primary studies with low or moderate risk of bias are presented in Table 10. Fig 3 presents a summary of the quality assessment of the included studies with low or moderate risk of bias.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Methodological assessment of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 8. Characteristics and quality assessment of included primary studies with low or moderate risk of bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t008

thumbnail
Download:
Table 9. Included studies with high risk of bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t009

thumbnail
Download:
Table 10. Outcome of included primary studies with low or moderate risk of bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.t010

Because of the limited material, no statistical analysis was undertaken.

Discussion

This complex systematic review of prophylactic antibiotics in orthognathic surgery identified no systematic reviews at low risk of bias and two at moderate risk. The latter had somewhat discrepant results. Although both studies concluded that the use of antibiotics in orthognathic surgery was beneficial, Tan et al. concluded that prolonging antibiotic cover offered no further benefit and Brignardello-Petersen suggested the opposite.

The main shortcoming in both of these systematic reviews is the inclusion in their meta-analyses of studies at either high risk [24], or unclear risk of bias [1]. There is an implied risk that the scientific shortcomings of the included primary studies may unduly influence the major conclusions of the systematic review. As the reader of the systematic review generally accepts the author’s assessments of the included primary studies, such misuse of statistics is particularly problematic. The experienced reader can fairly easily detect the inclusion in the meta-analysis of primary studies with high risk of bias. Applying the description “unclear risk of bias” when lack of information about material and methods precludes assessment of scientific quality is per se acceptable. However, such studies should not be included in the meta-analysis as equivalent to studies at either low or moderate risk of bias: this is speculative and misleading. Such a systematic review is clearly at moderate to high risk of bias. In summary, this highlights the importance of meticulous and stringent quality assessment of reviews before drawing conclusions, especially when the conclusions are relevant to clinical practice.

The review of primary studies identified two studies, with different aims, at low or moderate risk of bias. These two studies have also been included in previous systematic reviews presented in this complex systematic review. There were no significant differences between any of the groups in the included studies, and the data were so limited that no conclusions should be drawn about potential beneficial effects in any treatment group. The differing aims of the two studies precluded meta-analysis.

A disappointing finding in this complex systematic review is that twelve studies could have been included in the results if they had met the required standards for randomized controlled trials. Despite the availability of guidelines for reporting RCTs, suboptimal study design, methods, and interpretation of results emerged as major weaknesses[30]. The findings presented following these shortcomings might not be guidelines for clinicians making decisions about the proper use of antibiotics in conjunction with orthognathic surgery, but more of a signal to researchers about the proper conduct of clinical trials and adherence to guidelines when reporting their results.

Failure to adhere to a proper study protocol may also raise ethical issues, implying not only that the inexperienced reader might be misled by the results and that economic resources were being used inappropriately, but also that the subjects had undergone participation in a trial which lacked the potential to improve scientific knowledge.

Conclusion

In the field of orthognathic surgery, most studies of antibiotic prophylaxis to date have been poorly performed and reported. Scientific uncertainty remains with respect to the preferred antibiotic compound and the optimal range of the prophylaxis.

Supporting information

S1 PRISMA Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

2009 checklist for reporting of systematic reviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191161.s001

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Carl Gornitzki and Gun Brit Knutsson, the library at Karolinska Institutet for skilful assistance.

References

  1. 1. Brignardello-Petersen R, Carrasco-Labra A, Araya I, Yanine N, Cordova Jara L, Villanueva J. Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infectious complications in orthognathic surgery. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;1:CD010266. Epub 2015/01/07. pmid:25561078
  2. 2. Danda AK, Ravi P. Effectiveness of postoperative antibiotics in orthognathic surgery: a meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(10):2650–6. Epub 2011/05/10. pmid:21549486
  3. 3. Oomens MA, Verlinden CR, Goey Y, Forouzanfar T. Prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(6):725–31. Epub 2014/03/07. pmid:24598429
  4. 4. Tan SK, Lo J, Zwahlen RA. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(1):19–27. Epub 2010/12/21. pmid:21168350
  5. 5. Davies SC, Fowler T, Watson J, Livermore DM, Walker D. Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer: infection and the rise of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet. 2013;381(9878):1606–9. Epub 2013/03/16. pmid:23489756
  6. 6. Falagas ME, Bliziotis IA. Pandrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: the dawn of the post-antibiotic era? International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2007;29(6):630–6. Epub 2007/02/20. pmid:17306965
  7. 7. Bronzwaer SL, Cars O, Buchholz U, Molstad S, Goettsch W, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. A European study on the relationship between antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance. Emerging infectious diseases. 2002;8(3):278–82. Epub 2002/04/03. pmid:11927025
  8. 8. Livermore DM. Minimising antibiotic resistance. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2005;5(7):450–9. Epub 2005/06/28. pmid:15978531
  9. 9. Foucault C, Brouqui P. How to fight antimicrobial resistance. FEMS immunology and medical microbiology. 2007;49(2):173–83. Epub 2006/12/22. pmid:17181560
  10. 10. Aldrin M, Raastad R, Tvete IF, Berild D, Frigessi A, Leegaard T, et al. Antibiotic resistance in hospitals: a ward-specific random effect model in a low antibiotic consumption environment. Statistics in medicine. 2013;32(8):1407–18. Epub 2012/10/03. pmid:23027651
  11. 11. Chardin H, Yasukawa K, Nouacer N, Plainvert C, Aucouturier P, Ergani A, et al. Reduced susceptibility to amoxicillin of oral streptococci following amoxicillin exposure. Journal of medical microbiology. 2009;58(Pt 8):1092–7. Epub 2009/06/17. pmid:19528154
  12. 12. Khalil D, Hultin M, Rashid MU, Lund B. Oral microflora and selection of resistance after a single dose of amoxicillin. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2016;22(11):949 e1–e4. Epub 2016/08/30.
  13. 13. SBU. Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Procedures Antibiotikaprofylax vid kirurgiska ingrepp. En systematisk litteraturöversikt. Stockholm2010.
    • 14. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2004;328(7454):1490. Epub 2004/06/19. pmid:15205295
    • 15. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Minimizing bias. In: Higgins JPT GS, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2011.
      • 16. Lund B, Hultin M, Tranaeus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. Complex systematic review—Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. Clinical oral implants research. 2015;26 Suppl 11:1–14. Epub 2015/06/18.
      • 17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100. Epub 2009/07/22. pmid:19621070
      • 18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097. Epub 2009/07/22. pmid:19621072
      • 19. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of internal medicine. 2008;148(10):776–82. Epub 2008/05/21. pmid:18490690
      • 20. Mejare IA, Klingberg G, Mowafi FK, Stecksen-Blicks C, Twetman SH, Tranaeus SH. A systematic map of systematic reviews in pediatric dentistry—what do we really know? PloS one. 2015;10(2):e0117537. Epub 2015/02/24. pmid:25706629
      • 21. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PloS one. 2007;2(12):e1350. Epub 2007/12/27. pmid:18159233
      • 22. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–20. Epub 2009/02/24. pmid:19230606
      • 23. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–94. Epub 2011/01/05. pmid:21195583
      • 24. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):401–6. Epub 2011/01/07. pmid:21208779
      • 25. Tan SK, Lo J, Zwahlen RA. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials (Provisional abstract). Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics [Internet]. 2011; 112(1):[19–27 pp.]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/cldare/articles/DARE-12011007098/frame.html. pmid:21168350
      • 26. Ariyan S, Martin J, Lal A, Cheng D, Borah GL, Chung KC, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical-site infection in plastic surgery: an evidence-based consensus conference statement from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1723–39. pmid:25724064
      • 27. Kreutzer K, Storck K, Weitz J. Current evidence regarding prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck and maxillofacial surgery. BioMed Research International. 2014;2014.
      • 28. Lindeboom JA, Baas EM, Kroon FH. Prophylactic single-dose administration of 600 mg clindamycin versus 4-time administration of 600 mg clindamycin in orthognathic surgery: A prospective randomized study in bilateral mandibular sagittal ramus osteotomies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;95(2):145–9. pmid:12582352
      • 29. Tan SK, Lo J, Zwahlen RA. Are postoperative intravenous antibiotics necessary after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery? A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(12):1363–8. pmid:21871782
      • 30. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bmj. 2010;340:c869. Epub 2010/03/25. pmid:20332511