The influence of preoperative antibiotics on success of endosseous implants at 36 months

Antibiotics prescribing practices in oral implantology among jordanian dentists. A cross sectional, observational study

BACKGROUND

In oral implantology, there is no consensus on the most appropriate regimen for antibiotics prescribing, the decision to prescribe antibiotic is usually based on procedure, patient and clinician related factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the rationale of antibiotic prescribing among Jordanian clinicians who practice oral implantology.

FINDINGS

The target sample for the study was the 250 Jordan Dental Implant Group members. A five page questionnaire contained 41 questions, both closed and open questions were used to collect data. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Windows 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics were generated.The response rate was (70.4%) 176/250. Mean age was 37.2 yrs, 49.4% always prescribe antibiotics mainly oral amoxicillin and amoxicillin with clavulinic acid. Antibiotics prescribing increased with flap raising, multiple implants and sinus or bone augmentation. Patient medical condition, periodontitis and oral hygiene were the most important clinical factors in antibiotic prescribing, non-clinical factors were; reading scientific materials, courses and lectures, knowledge gained during training, and the effectiveness and previous experience with the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variations in antibiotics types, routes, dose and duration of administration were found. Recommendations on antibiotic prescribing are needed to prevent antibiotic overprescribing and misuse.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications

BACKGROUND

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimise infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and, if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 2nd June 2010. Several dental journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were identified: three comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 patients) and the other comparing 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg 4 times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the four trials showed a statistically significant higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: RR = 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.84). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 33 (95% CI 17 to 100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 5% in patients not receiving antibiotics. The other outcomes were not statistically significant, and only two minor adverse events were recorded, one in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 hour preoperatively significantly reduce failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. No significant adverse events were reported. It might be sensible to suggest the use of a single dose of 2 g prophylactic amoxicillin prior to dental implant placement. It is still unknown whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic.

Early wound healing following one-stage dental implant placement with and without antibiotic prophylaxis: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

One-stage implant placement has clinically acceptable treatment outcomes. Among other advantages, it may allow investigation of early wound healing. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) can be used to detect early changes around implants placed with one-stage surgical protocol following 1 week of healing.

METHODS

Twenty subjects (11 males and nine females; aged 22 to 72 years; two smokers) were included. Exclusion criteria were allergies to amoxicillin and systemic conditions that may affect healing. Subjects had a healthy periodontium and needed a single implant; eight received antibiotic prophylaxis, and 12 served as controls. Clinical healing was evaluated with plaque and gingival indices (PI and GI, respectively). Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) from the surgical site was obtained prior to the surgery, whereas PICF was collected at the 1-week visit. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine GCF/PICF interleukin (IL)-1beta and -8 concentrations. Peripheral blood and GCF antibiotic levels were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography.

RESULTS

Postoperative PI and GI were slightly increased. Total GCF and PICF volumes did not show a significant difference between appointments. There was an increase in PICF IL-1beta and -8 levels at 1 week postoperatively. Mean amoxicillin serum concentration was 5.1 +/- 2 microg/ml at 1 to 4 hours following the initial dose, whereas GCF amoxicillin levels were below the limit of detection. Antibiotic prophylaxis had a modest effect on clinical indices (PI and GI) and no appreciable effect on biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

PICF content can be studied as early as 1 week following one-stage implant placement. The results raise doubts regarding the clinical usefulness of amoxicillin prophylaxis.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications

BACKGROUND

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimize infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and, if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 9th January 2008. Several dental journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc.).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs were identified: one comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (316 patients) and the other comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg 4 times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the two trials showed a statistically significant higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: RR = 0.22 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.86). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 13 to 100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 6% in patients not receiving antibiotics. The other outcomes were not statistically significant, and only two minor adverse events were recorded, one of which in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 hour preoperatively significantly reduce failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. It remains unclear whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic. It might be recommendable to suggest the use of one dose of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental implant placement.

Do preoperative antibiotics prevent dental implant complications?

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase were consulted to find relevant work. Searches were made by hand of numerous journals pertinent to oral implantology. There were no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) with a followup of at least 3 months were chosen. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc.).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the quality and extracted relevant data from included studies. The estimated effect of the intervention was expressed as a risk ratio together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) were calculated from numbers of patients affected by implant failures. Meta-analysis was done only if there were studies with similar comparisons that reported the same outcome measure. Significance of any discrepancies between studies was assessed by means of the Cochran's test for heterogeneity and the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Only two RCT met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these two trials showed a statistically significantly higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics (relative risk, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.86). The NNT to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 25 (95%CI, 13-100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 6% in people not receiving antibiotics. The following outcomes were not statistically significantly linked with implant failure: prosthesis failure, postoperative infection and adverse events (eg, gastrointestinal effects, hypersensitivity).

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 h preoperatively significantly reduces failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. It remains unclear whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic. One dose of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental implant placement might be recommended.

Retrospective analysis of 736 implants inserted without antibiotic therapy

PURPOSE

The routine use of antibiotics in oral implant treatment seems to be widespread. The principle of antibiotic prophylaxis before oral surgical procedures in patients at risk for endocarditis or in those who are severely immunocompromised is well established. Antibiotic therapy in conjunction with implant surgery in fit patients and its correlation with failure and success rates remains poorly documented, however. The debate regarding overprescription of antibiotics raises the need for a critical evaluation of proper antibiotic coverage in association with implant treatment. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively show and value the outcomes of dental implant treatment without antibiotic prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 437 consecutively treated patients, in whom a total of 736 implants were placed. The population received no prophylactic antibiotics, but received anti-inflammatory therapy (nimesulide 100 mg twice daily or Arnica montana 5C 3 times a day) for 3 days postoperatively. Healing was evaluated at second-stage surgery (4 to 6 months postoperatively). Failure was defined as removal of the implant due to either signs of infection or nonosseointegration of the implant, according to the criteria for success described by Albrektsson and Coll in 1988.

RESULTS

The implant survival rate in the sample (96.2%) was no lower than the high success rates published in the literature using various antibiotic regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the results of several recent reviews of minor use of antibiotics in oral surgery. These findings suggest that the use of antibiotics for routine oral implants may not be as beneficial as once believed and that clinicians should look forward to the reduction of their unnecessary use. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis before oral surgical procedures remains a controversial issue, poorly documented in the literature.

Antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative complications after tooth extraction and implant placement: A review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To assess published evidence regarding the use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis among children and adults undergoing dental extraction or implant placement.

DATA

Research published between 12/31/97 and 6/30/07 in English.

SOURCES

MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials using the following search terms linked with Boolean AND logic: prophylactic antibiotics, dentistry, tooth, third molar, extraction, implant, endosseous, prophylaxis, prophylactic, infective endocarditis, bacterial, infection, and bacteremia.

STUDY SELECTION

Eight randomized clinical trials and one retrospective study was found involving preoperative use of antibiotics before tooth extraction. Four additional non-randomized intervention studies among patients undergoing implant placement were found. These 13 studies comprised all of the published research found that met our inclusion criteria. Overall, this body of literature was limited and of poor quality. In general, sample sizes were small and provided insufficient statistical power to avoid type II, or false-negative errors. In some studies no comparison group was included and/or it was difficult to determine the extent to which the intervention had actually been implemented.

CONCLUSION

With the recent improvements in the current standards of antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry, further monitoring of antibiotic use among dental practitioners as well as continuing education for practitioners concerning the public health risks related to the over-prescription of antibiotics are needed.

Randomized clinical trials in implant therapy: relationships among methodological, statistical, clinical, paratextual features and number of citations

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships among reported methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual variables of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in implant therapy, and their influence on subsequent research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The material consisted of the RCTs in implant therapy published through the end of the year 2000. Methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of the articles were assessed and recorded. The perceived clinical relevance was subjectively evaluated by an experienced clinician on anonymous abstracts. The impact on research was measured by the number of citations found in the Science Citation Index. A new statistical technique (Structural learning of Bayesian Networks) was used to assess the relationships among the considered variables.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics revealed that the reported methodology and statistics of RCTs in implant therapy were defective. Follow-up of the studies was generally short. The perceived clinical relevance appeared to be associated with the objectives of the studies and with the number of published images in the original articles. The impact on research was related to the nationality of the involved institutions and to the number of published images.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs in implant therapy (until 2000) show important methodological and statistical flaws and may not be appropriate for guiding clinicians in their practice. The methodological and statistical quality of the studies did not appear to affect their impact on practice and research. Bayesian Networks suggest new and unexpected relationships among the methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of RCTs.

Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the influence of systemic and local bone and intra-oral factors on the occurrence of early implant failures, i.e. up to the abutment connection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The surgical records of 2004 consecutive patients from the total patient population who had been treated in the period 1982-2003 (with a total of 6946 Brånemark system implants) at the Department of Periodontology of the Catholic University Leuven were evaluated. For each patient the medical history was carefully checked. Data collection and analysis mainly focused on endogenous factors such as hypertension, coagulation problems, osteoporosis, hypo-hyperthyroidy, chemotherapy, diabetes type I or II, Crohn's disease, some local factors [e.g. bone quality and quantity, implant (length, diameter, location), type of edentulism, Periotest value at implant insertion, radiotherapy], smoking habits and breach of sterility during surgery.

RESULTS

A global failure rate of 3.6% was recorded. Osteoporosis, Crohn's disease, smoking habits, implant (length, diameter and location) and vicinity with the natural dentition were all significantly associated with early implant failures (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The indication for the use of oral implants should sometimes be reconsidered when alternative prosthetic treatments are available in the presence of possibly interfering systemic or local factors.

Current products and practice: bone anchorage devices in orthodontics

Bone anchorage is a promising new field in orthodontics and already a wide variety of bone anchorage devices (BADs) are available commercially. This review aims to assist clinicians by outlining the principles of bone anchorage and the salient features of the available systems, especially those that may influence the choice of a specific BAD for anchorage reinforcement.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for dentoalveolar surgery: is it indicated?

Usually dentists in Australia give patients oral antibiotics after dentoalveolar surgery as a prophylaxis against wound infection. When this practice is compared to the principle of antibiotic prophylaxis in major surgery it is found to be at variance in a number of ways. In major surgery, the risk of infection should be high, and the consequences of infection severe or catastrophic, before antibiotic prophylaxis is ordered. If it is provided then a high dose of an appropriate spectrum antibiotic must be present in the blood prior to the first incision. Other factors which need to be considered are the degree of tissue trauma, the extent of host compromise, other medical comorbidities and length of hospitalization. Standardized protocols of administration have been determined and evaluated for most major surgical procedures. Dentoalveolar surgery is undoubtedly a skilled and technically challenging procedure. However, in contrast to major surgical procedures, it has a less than five per cent infection rate and rarely has severe adverse consequences. Dentoalveolar surgery should be of short duration with minimal tissue damage and performed in the dental chair under local anaesthesia. Controlled studies for both mandibular third molar surgery and placement of dental implants show little or no evidence of benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis and there is an adverse risk from the antibiotic. This review concludes that there is no case for antibiotic prophylaxis for most dentoalveolar surgery in fit patients. In the few cases where it can be considered, a single high preoperative dose should be given.

Three-Year Analysis of Tapered Screw-Vent Implants Placed into Extraction Sockets Grafted With Mineralized Bone Allograft

With clinicians placing more dental implants, it is becoming increasingly important to maintain bone volume after tooth extraction. This article reports the results of implants placed into extraction sites grafted with particulate mineralized bone allograft (Puros). A total of 313 extraction sites were grafted with mineralized bone graft during a 36-month period. A total of 252 Tapered Screw-Vent dental implants were placed into the grafted extraction sites after a 4- to 7-month healing period. All reentries revealed a bony hard structure acceptable for osteotomy preparation. A total of 244 of these implants have been restored with fixed prosthesis and 6 with removable overdentures for a total of 250 loaded implants. A total of 6 implants failed, which required their removal (2 implants before load and 4 after loading), resulting in a 97.6% implant success rate. We conclude that mineralized human allograft placed into extraction sites is clinically useful to maintain bone volume. This material provided a bony hard structure acceptable for implant placement with good success rates.

A randomized prospective controlled trial of antibiotic prophylaxis in intraoral bone grafting procedures: single-dose clindamycin versus 24-hour clindamycin prophylaxis

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of a single oral dose of clindamycin with a 24-h protocol of clindamycin administration in local buccal onlay grafting procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective randomized study in 124 patients was performed. Eligible patients were randomized to receive antibiotic prophylaxis either as a single dose (group I) or over a 24-h period (group II). In both groups prophylaxis started with an oral dose of 600 mg clindamycin 1 h before surgery, followed by either placebo or 300 mg clindamycin every 6 h. The primary endpoint of this study was wound infection at the receptor site within 8 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcome measurements included postoperative infections at the donor site and adverse events as a result of antibiotic administration.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 35.9+/-10.1 years (range 18-59 years). Infections at the receptor site were seen in two patients (3.2%, 95% CI 0-7.6%) of the single-dose group and in three patients (4.8%, 95% CI 0-10.1%) of the 24-h group. Infection at the donor site occurred in four patients (6.4%, 95% CI 0-12.5%) of the single-dose group and in two patients (3.2%, 95% CI 0-7.6%) of the 24-h group. Postoperative infections were predominantly caused by alpha-hemolytic streptococci sensitive to penicillin.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference was found between the prophylactic single dose of clindamycin and the 24-h regimen of clindamycin with regard to postoperative infection in patients undergoing local bone augmentation procedures.

Critical aspects in the use of orthodontic palatal implants

The concept that osseointegrated implants might provide absolute anchorage has led to the introduction of customized orthodontic implants, such as the Orthosystem (Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland). As this new technique evolves, especially with palatal implants, it is evident that many factors influence an implant's ease of use and clinical effectiveness. In particular, successful placement and subsequent usage depend on control of the profile drill's position, inclination, and speed. This article examines the critical factors at each stage of the clinical protocol and proposes a standardized approach for palatal implants. Particular emphasis is placed on a combined process of cephalometric and working model planning. The resultant implant prescription is then relayed to the placement stage by using a surgical stent with a locating guide plane, as introduced here.

Amine Fluoride/Stannous Fluoride and Chlorhexidine Mouthwashes as Adjuncts to Single-Stage Dental Implants: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

The growing popularity of non-submerged dental implants in recent years requires a greater emphasis on microbial plaque control. Chlorhexidine (CHX), the most commonly used mouthwash in implant surgery, is sometimes associated with tooth staining and alteration in taste perception. Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF2) mouthwash has been shown to have anti-infective properties; however, it has not been tested as an adjunct anti-infective means in non-submerged dental implants. The purpose of this trial was to compare AmF/SnF2 and CHX mouthwashes as adjuncts to single-stage dental implants.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients aged 34 to 79 (mean 54.30 +/- 8.69 SD) requiring dental implants were accepted into the study. Following comprehensive periodontal therapy patients received one to three non-submerged dental implants (maxilla: 17; mandible: 45; anterior: 3, posterior: 59). After surgery patients were given analgesics and antibiotics as well as 2,400 ml of coded mouthwash bottles previously randomized between the two above mentioned formulations. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline and 3 and 12 months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Twelve-month survival rates were 100% and 92.9% for the AmF/SnF2 and CHX groups, respectively. Compliance was slightly higher in the AmF/SnF2 group (84.35% +/- 3.39% versus 78.15% +/- 4.59% SE) but statistically similar. There was no statistically significant difference between the AmF/SnF2 and CHX groups in staining index at 3 months (1.519 +/- 0.22 versus 1.457 +/- 0.24 SE) and patient subjective evaluation of the mouthwashes. Radiographic bone loss was 0.79 +/- 0.23 and 1 +/- 0.13 SE at 3 months and 1.06 +/- 0.13 and 1.27 +/- 0.25 at 12 months for the CHX and AmF/SnF2 groups, respectively; the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.388 and 0.504, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both CHX and AmF/SnF2 mouthwashes can be used post-surgically after one-stage implant surgery.

Post-Surgical Infections: Prevalence Associated With Various Periodontal Surgical Procedures

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.

Radiographic Evaluation of Dental Implants Placed Using an Osteotome Technique

BACKGROUND

The osteotome technique has been successfully used for implant placement when a limited vertical height is available at posterior maxilla. However, it is not clear if new bone is formed at the apical portion of the implant placed by this technique without any bone graft. The aim of this study was to radiographically evaluate bone formation around dental implant surfaces exposed to the space created at the sinus floor without the presence of any graft material.

METHODS

Forty patients (21 male, 19 female; mean age 46.7 years) who received a total of 75 dental implants together with indirect sinus lifting procedure were included. Initial and 6-month postoperative panoramic films were scanned and analyzed using a commercially available software program. Implants were divided into two groups: initial alveolar bone height <9 mm or > or =9 mm. This helped determine the effect of available bone and exposed implant surface on bone formation in a system where the shortest implant was 8 mm.

RESULTS

The mean implant length placed at locations with <9 mm initial bone height (mean 7 +/- 1.3 mm, N = 29 implants) was 11 +/- 1.7 mm; gain in bone height was 3.9 +/- 1.9 mm. At locations where minimum bone height was 9 mm (mean 10.4 +/- 0.7 mm), 44 implants were placed with a 13.5 +/- 1.06 mm mean length. Mean gain in bone height was 2.9 +/- 1.2 mm at these sites. Two implants were lost at stage 2 surgery. The success rate after 25 months of loading was 97.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to radiographically observe a gain of approximately 3 to 4 mm of bone from the sinus floor to the implant apex. The amount of initial alveolar bone height, presence of sinus membrane perforation, and the amount of exposed implant surface appear to play a role in the presence or absence of radiopacity within the elevated sinus floor, following 6 months of healing.

Single-Tooth Replacements in the Esthetic Zone With an Immediate Function Implant: A Preliminary Report

Patients demand an economic, esthetic, and expedient fashion to replace teeth that are missing in the esthetic zone. The clinical response of a 1-piece spiral immediate-function implant was evaluated for this purpose. The implants were placed into immediate extraction sites as well as healed sites and were provisionalized, and patients were put into immediate function the same day as surgery. Sites that qualified for this technique were based on bone density. Bone density in combination with its aggressive thread design and conservative surgical osteotomy preparation produced a 98.8% success rate over a 3-year period for 86 patients.

A review of selected dental literature on evidence-based treatment planning for dental implants: Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics

This literature review summarizes research with the aim of providing dentists with evidence-based guidelines to apply when planning treatment with osseointegrated implants. Peer-reviewed literature published in the English language between 1969 and 2003 was reviewed using Medline and hand searches. Topics reviewed include systemic host factors such as age, gender, various medical conditions, and patient habits, local host factors involving the quantity and quality of bone and soft tissue, presence of present or past infection and occlusion, prosthetic design factors, including the number and arrangement of implants, size and coatings of implants, cantilevers and connections to natural teeth, and methods to improve outcomes of implant treatment in each category. The review demonstrated that there is no systemic factor or habit that is an absolute contraindication to the placement of osseointegrated implants in the adult patient, although cessation of smoking can improve outcome significantly. The most important local patient factor for successful treatment is the quality and quantity of bone available at the implant site. Specific design criteria are provided, including guidelines for spacing of implants, size, materials, occlusion, and fit. Limitations in the current body of knowledge are identified, and directions for future research are suggested.

AICRG, Part III: The Influence of Antibiotic Use on the Survival of a New Implant Design

PURPOSE

The American College of Surgeons guidelines suggest that complex oral surgery may benefit from prophylactic antibiotic coverage. The use of preoperative antibiotics, postoperative antibiotics, or both during implant placement is a widely accepted practice in the United States, whereas dentists in other countries rarely use antibiotics.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if antibiotic coverage at the time of implant placement improves the survival of the Ankylos implant.

METHODS

As part of a comprehensive, multicentered, multidisciplinary, prospective, independent, international clinical study, designed and coordinated in the United States by the Ankylos Implant Clinical Research Group (AICRG), the use of preoperative (several regimens) and postoperative antibiotics (yes/no) were carefully documented to assess their influence on improving survival. A total of 1500 Ankylos implants were placed and followed for a period of 3 to 5 years. The decision to use antibiotics and the regimen to be employed was made by the treating surgeon. Failure was defined as removal of the implant for any reason. All data were entered into a computerized database for analysis.

RESULTS

The use of preoperative antibiotics produced no significant improvement (P = .21, Fisher's exact test) in survival compared with those placed without antibiotic coverage. There was no significant difference between the regimens defined as AHA-1990, AHA-1997, and Peterson's recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that there was little or no advantage to providing antibiotic coverage when placing this implant. These findings also suggest that the use of antibiotics for implant placement may not be as beneficial as once believed. If validated by other studies, the elimination of this practice for routine implant placement would represent a small but significant step forward in the reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use.

Prevention. Part 5: Preventive strategies for patients requiring osseointegrated oral implant treatment

Prevention for patients requiring rehabilitation with oral implants is about preventing implant failure and biomechanical complications. This paper describes preventative strategies for the planning stage for implant treatment and the later maintenance period and indicates the level of scientific evidence supporting these strategies.

Antibiotics to prevent complications following dental implant treatment

BACKGROUND

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimise infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. It would be useful to know whether prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing failures of dental implants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of the administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: March 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotics regimens and no antibiotics/placebo to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs were identified.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is not appropriate scientific evidence to recommend or discourage the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics to prevent complications and failures of dental implants. Even though the present review did not assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at risk for endocarditis, it seems sensible to recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at high and moderate risk for endocarditis, with immunodeficiencies, metabolic diseases, irradiated in the head and neck area and when an extensive or prolonged surgery is anticipated.