[Clinical evaluation of XXXX in odontogenic infection].

@entity13648 @entity281 @entity89 @entity14698 @entity4421
The clinical effectiveness and safety of @entity14698 ( @entity14698 , RU), a new macrolide antibiotic, were compared with those of @entity13648 (JM) using a double-blind method in the treatment of @entity281 . The diseases covered in this study were periodontal @entity281 , pericoronal @entity281 and @entity4421 of @entity89 . Drugs were administered for 3 to 7 days at daily doses of 300 mg (RU) and 1,200 mg (JM). A total of 270 cases was evaluated in this study. Results obtained are summarized as follows: 1. The clinical efficacy was evaluated through the judgement of doctors in charge of 247 cases (128 in the RU group and 119 in the JM group) and by a committee on the 3rd day of treatment in 243 cases (126 in the RU group and 117 in the JM group). Clinical efficacy rates according to the committee judgement were 78.6% for the RU group and 82.1% for the JM group. As for the evaluation through the doctors' judgement, they were 79.7% for the RU group and 73.1% for the JM group. There was no significant difference in clinical effectiveness between 2 groups according to these 2 methods of judgement. 2. Some side effects were observed in 4 cases (2.9% out of 136) treated with RU and in 3 cases (2.4% out of 126) treated with JM. No severe symptoms were observed. Abnormal changes in laboratory test values were noted among 7.9% in the RU group and 4.0% in the JM group. There were no significant differences in their safety between the 2 groups. 3. In terms of clinical usefulness, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups as well. From these results, it has been concluded that RU (daily dose 300 mg) is as effective as JM (daily dose 1,200 mg) in the treatment of @entity281 .
