Post‐Surgical Infections: Prevalence Associated With Various Periodontal Surgical Procedures
Authors: Powell Charles A. , Mealey Brian L. , Deas David E. , McDonnell Howard T. , Moritz Alan J. 
Published: April 2005

Background: Of the various adverse outcomes that may be encountered following periodontal surgery, the risk of infection stands at the forefront of concern to the surgeon, since infection can lead to morbidity and poor healing outcomes. This paper describes a large‐scale retrospective study of multiple surgical modalities in a diverse periodontal practice undertaken to explore the prevalence of clinical infections post‐surgically and the relationship between diverse treatment variables and infection rates.

Methods: A retrospective review of all available periodontal surgical records of patients treated in the Department of Periodontics at Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, was conducted. The sample comprised 395 patients and included 1,053 fully documented surgical procedures. Surgical techniques reviewed included osseous resective surgery, flap curettage, distal wedge procedures, gingivectomy, root resection, guided tissue regeneration, dental implant surgery, epithelialized free soft tissue autografts, subepithelial connective tissue autografts, coronally positioned flaps, sinus augmentations, and ridge preservation or augmentation procedures. Infection was defined as increasing and progressive swelling with the presence of suppuration. The impact of various treatment variables was examined including the use of bone grafts, membranes, soft tissue grafts, post‐surgical chlorhexidine rinses, systemic antibiotics, and dressings. Results were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Pearson's chi‐square test.

Results: Of the 1,053 surgical procedures evaluated in this study, there were a total of 22 infections for an overall prevalence of 2.09%. Patients who received antibiotics as part of the surgical protocol (pre‐ and/ or post‐surgically) developed eight infections in 281 procedures (2.85%) compared to 14 infections in 772 procedures (1.81%) where antibiotics were not used. Procedures in which chlorhexidine was used during post‐surgical care had a lower infection rate (17 infections in 900 procedures, 1.89%) compared to procedures after which chlorhexidine was not used as part of post‐surgical care (five infections in 153 procedures, 3.27%). The use of a post‐surgical dressing demonstrated a slightly higher rate of infection (eight infections in 300 procedures, 2.67%) than non‐use of a dressing (14 infections in 753 procedures, 1.86%). Despite these trends, no statistically significant relationship was found between post‐surgical infection and any of the treatment variables examined, including the use of perioperative antibiotics.

Conclusions: The results of this study confirm previous research demonstrating a low rate of postoperative infection following periodontal surgical procedures. Although perioperative antibiotics are commonly used when performing certain regenerative and implant surgical procedures, data from this and other studies suggest that there may be no benefit in using antibiotics for the sole purpose of preventing post‐surgical infections. Further large‐scale, controlled clinical studies are warranted to determine the role of perioperative antibiotics in the prevention of periodontal post‐surgical infections. J Periodontol 2005;76:329‐333.