Hirurško vađenje impaktiranih donjih umnjaka veoma je česta oralnohirurška intervencija, koja je, u postoperativnom toku, obično praćena neprijatnim tegobama (bol, edem i trizmus), a nekad i potencijalno ozbiljnim komplikacijama (alveolitis i postoperativna infekcija). Stoga se savetuje primena različitih medikamenata i postupaka kojima bi se pojava ovih tegoba i komplikacija predupredila ili ublažila. S tim u vezi, u stručnoj i naučnoj literaturi vodi se rasprava o svsishodnosti profilaktičke primene antibiotika. Interesantno je da se mogu naći brojni radovi u kojima se preporučuje profilaktička primena antibiotika prilikom hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka, ali i radovi kojima se obrazlaže neslaganje sa takvim pristupom, potkrepljujući sumnju u odnos koristi spram rizika od uzgrednih efekata antibiotika, tim pre što je rastuća rezistencija mikroorganizama na antibiotike potencijalno ozbiljna pretnja globalnom zdravlju. Po pitanju profilaktičke primene antibiotika u ovoj indikaciji još nije postignut konsenzus, a nijedan od dva suprostavljena stava nije verifikovan ubedljivim naučno potvrđenim dokazima. Cilj. Imajući sve napred rečeno u vidu, osnovni cilj istraživanja bio je da se utvrdi opravdanost profilaktičke primene antibiotika u cilju ublažavanja osnovnih tegoba i komplikacija nakon hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka i da se, istovremeno, ispita efikasnost novijih vrsta antibiotika (moksifloksacin i cefiksim) primenjenih na taj način. Pri tom, izvršena su i laboratorijska (mikrobiološka) istraživanja senzitivnosti izolovanih mikroorganizama na antibiotike korišćene u istraživanju, koja bi mogla korisno da verifikuju klinički dobijene rezultate. Imajući to u vidu, na osnovu naučno verifikovanih rezultata, mogu se očekivati dve velike koristi od planiranog istraživanja: (1) potvrda ili negiranje opravdanosti profilaktičke primene antibiotika radi suzbijanja bilo koje od tegoba ili komplikacija posle hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka; (2) potvrda efikasnosti fluorohinolona (moksifloksacin) i cefalosporina (cefiksim) u suzbijanju dentogenih infekcija. Materijal i metode. Kliničko istraživanje sprovedeno je u Službi oralne hirurgije sa operacionim blokom i stacionarom Klinike za stomatologiju Vojvodine, po dizajnu dvostruko-slepe prospektivne kliničke studije, koje je obuhvatilo 177 ispitanika. Mikrobiološka istraživanja, sprovedena su u Centru za mikrobiologiju Instituta za javno zdravlje Vojvodine, na uzorcima brisa iz operativne rane pacijenata s postoperativnom infekcijom ili eksudata (gnoja) dobijenog iz perikoronarnog prostora pacijenata sa perikoronitisom. Pri tom, antibiogramom je utvrđivana senzitivnost izolovanih mikroorganizama na moksifloksacin, cefiksim i druge antibiotike koji se često koriste u oralnoj hirurgiji (penicilin i njegovi derivati, eitromicin, klindamicin i etraciklin). U studiju su uključeni samo ispitanici dobrog opšteg zdravstvenog stanja (ispitanici klasifikovani kao ASA I i ASA II), a u studiji nisu mogli da budu uključeni ispitanici kod kojih postoji sumnja na alergiju na antibiotike uopšte, a posebno na antibiotike koji su korišćeni u istraživanju, te maloletna lica, trudnice i dojilje. Zbog nepridržavanja datih uputstava u postoperativnom periodu ili neodazivanja na zakazane kontrolne preglede iz studije je isključeno 20 ispitanika. Istraživačke grupe formirane su nakon završenog istraživanja i otkrivanja odgovarajućeg šifarnika. Nakon završenog istraživanja, po otvaranju šifarnika, ustanovljeno je da je prvu studijsku grupu (M) činilo 52 ispitanika, kojima je u postoperativnom periodu ordiniran moksifloksacin. Drugu studijsku grupu (C) činilo je 53 ispitanika, kojima je u postoperativnom periodu ordiniran cefiksim. Treću, kontrolnu grupu (P) činilo je 52 ispitanika, kojima u postoperativnom periodu nije ordiniran antibiotik, već placebo tablete (koje su bile, izgledom, identične korišćenim antibioticima, ali su sadržavale samo indiferentne supstancije). Zavisno od preoperativno postojeće infekcije oko krune delimično izraslog umnjaka, tj. perikoronitisa, ispitanici sve tri formirane grupe, u svakoj od njih, svrstani su u dve podgrupe: podgrupu a (bez znakova perikoronitisa) i podgrupu b (sa prisutnim perikoronitisom). Na osnovu ovog kriterijuma, u grupi M, podgrupu a činilo je 39 ispitanika, a podrgupu b 13 ispitanika; u grupi C, podgrupu a činilo je 39 ispitanika, a podgrupu b 14 ispitanika; u kontrolnoj grupi (P), podgrupu a činilo je 39 ispitanika, a podgrupu b 13 ispitanika. Procena efekata primenjenih lekova vršenaje na osnovu postoperativnih tegoba ili komplikacija. Procena postoperativne analgezije vršena je pomoću vizuelno analogne skale (VAS) i verbalne skale rangiranja (VRS). Kod svakog ispitanika bio je registrovan momenat nastanka postoperativnog bola i njegov intenzitet, a registrovana je i potreba za dodatnim analgeticima. Postoperativni koeficijent edema dobijen je milimetarskim premeravanjem preoperativnog i postoperativnog odstojanja između pojedinih referentnih tačaka: spoljašnjeg ugla oka i ugla donje vilice; ugla usana i tragusa; vrha brade i tragusa. Procena stepena postoperativnog trizmusa vršena je merenjem razdaljine između mezijalno-incizalnih uglova gornjih i donjih centralnih sekutića pri maksimalno otvorenim ustima. U postoperativnom periodu registrovana je i pojava alveolitisa, kao i znaci postoperativne infekcije. Statistička analiza dobijenih podataka izvršena je primenom parametarskih (ANOVA i ANOVA ponovljenih merenja) i neparametarskih testova (Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman test, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, McNemar test i Pearson χ2 test). Rezultati. Opisana prospektivna, dvostruko-slepa klinička studija, kao i izvršeno mikro-biološko istraživanje, pružili su sledeće rezultate: (1) kod ispitanika kod kojih su profilaktički primenjivani moksifloksacin ili cefiksim, utvrđena je statistički značajno manja učestalost, kao i manji intenzitet i kraće trajanje postoperativnih tegoba (bol, edem i trizmus) u odnosu na ispitanike kod kojih je primenjen placebo; (2) ispitanici kod kojih je profilaktički, u sklopu hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka, primenjivan moksifloksacin, imali su statistički značajno manju učestalost alveolitisa u odnosu na ispitanike kod kojih je primenjen cefiksim, kao i u odnosu na ispitanike kod kojih je primenjen placebo; (3) ispitanici kod kojih su profilaktički primenjivani moksifloksacin ili cefiksim, imali su statistički značajno manju učestalost postoperativne infekcije u odnosu na ispitanike kod kojih je primenjen placebo, pogotovu ako je inflamacija bila i preoperativno prisutna oko krune umnjaka. Pri tom, kod ispitanika koji su primili moksifloksacin, postoperativna infekcija nije zabeležena ni u jednom slučaju; (4) mikroorganizmi izolovani iz brisa perikoronoranog prostora kod ispitanika sa perikoronitisom ili iz brisa operativne rane u slučaju pojave postoperativne infekcije, na osnovu antibiograma, bili su osetljivi na moksifloksacin i na cefiksim, što ukazuje na efikasnost ovih antibiotika na prozrokovače oralnih infekcija, dok je zapažen povećan procenat rezistencije mikroorganizama na standardno primenjivane antibiotike, pogotovu na penicilin i njegove derivate. Zaključak. Na osnovu svih rezultata istraživanja, zaključeno je da su potvrđene hipoteze o efikasnosti moksifloksacina i cefiksima u profilaksi postoperativne infekcije nakon hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka i da su mikroorganizmi oralne flore, generalno, senzitivni na pomenute antibiotike. Međutim, hipoteze da moksifloksacin i cefiksim neće ispoljiti efekat na profilaksu inflamacijskih postoperativnih tegoba (bol, edem i trizmus), kao i alveolitisa, nisu potvrđene i mogu se odbaciti. Iz svih navedenih rezultata, može se zaključiti da je profilaktička primena moksifloksacina ili cefiksima u sklopu hirurškog vađenja impaktiranih donjih umnjaka svrsishodna u smislu ublažavanja i suzbijanja postoperativnih inflamacijskih tegoba i komplikacija., Surgical removal of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent intervention, usually accompanied by unpleasant sequelae (pain, oedema and trismus) in the postoperative period, sometimes even with possibly serious complications (dry socket and postoperative infection). It is therefore advisable to use various medications and procedures to prevent or alleviate the occurrence of these sequelae and complications. Accordingly, there is a debate in the literature on the expedience of prophylactic use of antibiotics. It is interesting that numerous articles recommending prophylactic antibiotic use to patients undergoing the impacted mandibular third molar surgerymay be found, as well as those providing arguments for the disagreement with such an approach, considering that its benefits do not outweigh the risks of adverse side effects, especially due to growing resistance of microorganisms towards antibiotics, which is a possible serious threat to global health. Concerning the prophylactic use of antibiotics for this indication, consensus has not yet been reached, and neither of the views has been verified by convincing scientific evidence. Aim. Having the aforementioned dilemma in mind, the main goal of the study was to determine the validity of prophylactic use of antibiotics as to alleviate customary sequelae and possible complications after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars and, at the same time, the effectiveness of newer antibiotics (moxifloxacin and cefixime) when used for this purpose. Moreover, microbiological investigations of sensitivity of the isolated microorganisms to antibiotics used in this research were performed, which could verify the clinically obtained results.With this in mind, two major contributions, based on scientifically verified results, could be expected from the research: (1) confirmation or refuting the validity of prophylactic antibiotic use to controlsequelae or complications that could follow the impacted mandibular third molar surgery; and (2) confirmation of the efficacy of fluoroquinolones (moxifloxacin) and cephalosporins (cefixime) in controlling odontogenic infections. Materials and methods. Clinical research was conducted at the Oral Surgery Department of the Dentistry Clinic of Vojvodina, adopting the double-blind prospective clinical study design, which included 177 subjects. Microbiological studies were performed at the Center for Microbiology of the Institute of Public Health of Vojvodina, on swab samples obtained from the surgical wounds of patients with postoperative infection or the exudate (pus) obtained from the peri-coronal space of patients with pericoronitis. The sensitivity of isolated microorganisms to moxifloxacin, cefixime and other antibiotics commonly used in oral surgery (penicillin and its derivatives, erythromycin, clindamycin and tetracycline) was tested microbiologically. Only subjects in good general health (subjects classified as ASA I and ASA II) were included in the study, while excluding those with suspected allergy to antibiotics in general, and in particular to the antibiotics used in the research, as well as under-age persons and pregnant and lactating women. Due to non-compliance with the instructions given for the postoperative period or failure to attend the scheduled check ups, 20 subjects were later on excluded from the study. Study groups were formed upon the study completion, once the treatment codebook was opened. Following the completion of the study, after opening the codebook, it was established that the first study group (M) consisted of 52 subjects, to whom moxifloxacin was administered in the postoperative period. The second study group (C) consisted of 53 subjects, to whom cefixime was administered in the postoperative period. The third, control group (P) consisted of 52 subjects who, instead ofreceiving an antibiotic in the postoperative period, were given placebo tablets (which were identical in appearance to the studied antibiotics, but contained only indifferent substances). Depending on the presence of preoperative infection around the crown of the partially erupted third molar, i.e. pericoronitis, subjects in all three groups were further separated into two subgroups: subgroup a (without signs of previous pericoronitis) and subgroup b (with pericoronitis present). Based on this criterion, in group M, subgroup a consisted of 39 participants, and subgroup b had 13 participants; in group C, subgroup a consisted of 39 participants, and subgroup b had 14 participants; and in the control group (P), subgroup a comprised of 39 participants and subgroup b of 13 participants. Evaluation of the effects of the applied medication was performed on the basis of postoperative sequelae or complications. Postoperative analgesia was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a verbal rating scale (VRS). For each subject, the timing of postoperative pain emergence and its intensity was noted, and the need for additional analgesics was registered as well.The postoperative oedema coefficient was obtained by measuring the preoperative and postoperative distance between specific reference points in millimetres. The reference points were: the outer corner of the eye and the angle of the lower jaw; lipcorner and tragus; and chin tip and tragus.The degree of postoperative trismus was assessed by measuring the distance between mesial-incisal angles of the upper and lower central incisors at the maximum mouth opening ability. In the postoperative period, emergence of dry socket was registered, along with signs of postoperative infection as well. Statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed via parametric (ANOVA and repeated measures ANOVA) and nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman test, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, McNemar test and Pearson χ2 test) tests. Results. The described prospective, double-blind clinical study, as well as the performed microbiological study, yielded the following results: (1) in subjects who were prophylactically administered moxifloxacin or cefixime, a lower incidence, as well as a lower intensity and shorter duration of postoperative sequelae (pain, oedema and trismus) was noticed, which was statistically significant in relation to subjects who received placebo; (2) subjects who prophylactically received moxifloxacin did not manifested dry socket at all, which statistically significantly differed from subjects who were administered cefixime or placebo; (3) subjects who prophylactically received moxifloxacin or cefixime did not have postoperative infection at all, unlike those who received placebo, especially if inflammation around the crown of the third molarwas present preoperatively; (4) microorganisms isolated from swabs taken from peri-coronal space in subjects with pericoronitis or from surgical wound in case of postoperative infection, based on bacterial sensitivity test, were sensitive to moxifloxacin and cefixime, indicating the efficacy of these antibiotics against bacteria causing oral infections; however, an increased rate of resistance of oral bacteria was noticed to commonly prescribed antibiotics, particularly to penicillin and its derivatives. Conclusion. Based on all the study results, it was concluded that the hypotheses that moxifloxacin and cefixime effectively prevent infection after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars and that the microorganisms of the oral flora are generally sensitive to these antibiotics were confirmed and supported. However, the hypotheses that moxifloxacin and cefixime will not affect the prophylaxis of inflammatory postoperative sequelae (pain, oedema and trismus), as well as dry socket, were not confirmed by the findings and they were rejected. Based on all aforementioned results, it can be concluded that prophylactic use of moxifloxacin or cefixime in patients undergoing the impacted mandibular third molar surgery is appropriate for alleviating and suppressing postoperative inflammatory sequelae and complications.