{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00983284169124877, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019665683382497543, 'mean_word_length': 5.484076433121019, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Amoxicillin and Clavulanic Acid Vs Ceftazidime in the Surgical Extraction of Impacted Third Molar: A Comparative Study

The objective of this work is to compare the effectiveness and the side effects of two different drugs, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid vs ceftazidime, used as antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical extraction of third molars and to demonstrate that the use of second choice antibiotic has no significant advantages in comparison with a first choice antibiotic. One hundred and seven patients with impacted third molar were selected and divided into two groups: amoxicillin and clavulanic acid were administered to group 1 and ceftazidime to group 2 for five days after surgery and we observed the postoperative period. The statistical analysis showed no differences between the two groups which lead to the conclusion that there is no indication to routinely administrate intramuscular second-choice antibiotic prophylactic therapy (ceftazidime) in case of surgical extraction of the third molar.