Antibiotics to prevent complications following dental implant treatment

Narrow Alveolar Ridge Management with Modified Ridge Splitting Technique: A Report of 3 Cases

Purpose. In this study, we report the usefulness of implant placement with modified ridge splitting technique from three cases of patients with narrow alveolar ridge. Materials and Methods. Three patients were those who visited the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Ewha Medical Center for consultation regarding implant placement. Through clinical and radiographic evaluation, narrowed alveolar ridge after tooth loss was confirmed in all three patients. For them, it was necessary to use the modified ridge split technique with bone augmentation for the implant to be well placed with enough bone width. Results. In all cases, sufficient bone width was confirmed for implant placement, and bone volume was well maintained after prosthetic restoration without any complications. Initial width of alveolar bone was 4.9 mm on average and was well maintained at an average of 7.6  mm at 1-year follow-up after implant installation. Conclusion. Although the number of subjects in this case report was small and was done by only one surgeon, we suggest that modified ridge splitting technique might be a useful surgical method to enhance narrow edentulous alveolar ridges and enable successful implant placement with shorter healing period compared with single guided bone regeneration.

Local and Systemic Antibiotics in Peri-Implantitis Management: An Umbrella Review

The present umbrella review aimed to characterize the type and regimen of antibiotics administered locally and/or systemically, alone or in combination with surgical and nonsurgical treatments, for peri-implantitis and to evaluate and compare the associated clinical, radiographic, and crevicular peri-implant outcomes. The secondary objective was to determine the most effective antibiotic type, route of administration, regimen, and protocols (antibiotics alone or in combination with other approaches) for treating peri-implantitis. The study protocol, which was developed in advance under the PRISMA statement, was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022373957). BioMed Central, Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library databases, and the PROSPERO registry were searched for systematic reviews through 15 November 2022. Of the 708 records found, seven reviews were included; three were judged of a critically low and four of low quality through the AMSTAR 2 tool. Locally administered antibiotics alone or as an adjunct to surgical or nonsurgical treatments for peri-implantitis showed favorable outcomes, albeit with limited evidence. The administration of systemically-delivered antibiotics in combination with nonsurgical or surgical treatments remained questionable. Local plus systemic antibiotics have not been shown to have durable efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of reported antibiotic types, routes, regimens, and protocols, no definitive conclusions could be drawn regarding the most effective antibiotic use in treating peri-implantitis.

Survival of dental implants and occurrence of osteoradionecrosis in irradiated head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Various databases (e.g., Medline/Embase using Ovid) and gray literature platforms were searched using a combination of keywords and subject headings. When appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model. Otherwise, pooled analysis was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 425 of the 660 included patients received radiotherapy. In total, 2602 dental implants were placed, and 1637 were placed in irradiated patients. Implant survival after an average follow-up of 37.7 months was 97% (5% confidence interval, CI 95.2%, 95% CI 98.3%) in nonirradiated patients and 91.9% (5% CI 87.7%, 95% CI: 95.3%) after an average follow-up of 39.8 months in irradiated patients. Osteoradionecrosis occurred in 11 cases, leading to an incidence of 3% (5% CI 1.6%, 95% CI 4.9%). The main factors impacting implant survival were radiation and grafting status, while factors influencing osteoradionecrosis could not be determined using meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that implant survival in irradiated patients is lower than in nonirradiated patients, and osteoradionecrosis is-while rare-a serious complication that any OMF surgeon should be prepared for. The key to success could be a standardized patient selection and therapy to improve the standard of care, reduce risks and shorten treatment time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our analysis provides further evidence that implant placement is a feasible treatment option in irradiated head and neck cancer patients with diminished oral function and good long-term cancer prognosis.

Perceptions of Antibiotic Use and Resistance: Are Antibiotics the Dentists' Anxiolytics?

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis. The aim of this study was to explore dentists' perceptions of antibiotic resistance.

METHODS

A qualitative method was used. Seventeen dentists practising in the Nancy (Lorraine, France) region were surveyed. They were general practitioners or specialised in oral surgery, implantology, or periodontology. The practitioners took part in semi-structured interviews between September 2019 and July 2020. All of the interviews were transcribed in full and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Four major themes have been selected: attitudes of the dentists in regard to the guidelines, clinical factors that influence prescriptions, non-clinical factors that influence prescriptions, and the perception of antibiotic resistance. The dentists stated that they were very concerned regarding the public health issue of antibiotic resistance. However, they often prescribe according to their own interests and habits rather than according to the relevant guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Although dentists are generally well aware of antibiotic resistance, they often do not adequately appreciate the link between their prescribing habits and the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance. Regular updating of practitioners' knowledge in this regard is necessary, but patients and the general public should also be made more aware of the issue.

Efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in prevention of dental implant failure: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are commonly used for replacement of missing teeth. Despite the published data highlighting the high success rate of dental implants, failures do occur. Some of these failures are believed to be a result of bacterial contamination at the site of implant insertion. Various antibiotic regimens have already been suggested to prevent failure due to infection.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to examine the efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in prevention of dental implant failure secondary to infections.

METHODOLOGY

An exhaustive search was conducted on electronic database including PubMed Medline, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane on July 15, 2019. All the randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing preoperative antibiotics with no antibiotics/placebo in dental implants were included in the study. The primary outcome for assessment was implant failure. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted for risk ratios of dichotomous data.

RESULTS

A total 8544 abstracts were screened following which 16 full text articles were reviewed and 5 RCTs were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results indicated that the preoperative antibiotics resulted in statistically significantly lower number of implant failures.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative antibiotics effectively reduce the implant failure rate. However, it is recommended to conduct large-scale RCT to determine the efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in dental implants.

An Antimicrobial Dental Light Curable Bioadhesive Hydrogel for Treatment of Peri-Implant Diseases

Dental implants constitute the standard of care to replace the missing teeth, which has led to an increase in the number of patients affected by peri-implant diseases (PIDs). Here, we report the development of an antimicrobial bioadhesive, GelAMP, for the treatment of PIDs. The hydrogel is based on a visible light-activated naturally-derived polymer (gelatin) and an antimicrobial peptide (AMP). The optimized formulation of GelAMP could be rapidly crosslinked using commercial dental curing systems. When compared to commercial adhesives, the bioadhesives exhibited significantly higher adhesive strength to physiological tissues and titanium. Moreover, the bioadhesive showed high cytocompatibility and could efficiently promote cell proliferation and migration in vitro. GelAMP also showed remarkable antimicrobial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis. Furthermore, it could support the growth of autologous bone after sealing calvarial bone defects in mice. Overall, GelAMP could be used as a platform for the development of more effective therapeutics against PIDs.

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; 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. A variety of prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimise infections after dental implant placement. More recent protocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the administration of antibiotics, and can range 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 or placebo administration and, if antibiotics are beneficial, to determine which type, dosage and duration is the most effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). There were no language or date restrictions placed on the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs with 1162 participants were included: three trials compared 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 participants), one compared 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (55 participants), one compared 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg four times a day for two days versus no antibiotics (80 participants), and one compared four groups: (1) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin; (2) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 1 g twice a day for seven days; (3) 1 g of postoperative amoxicillin twice a day for seven days, and (4) no antibiotics (100 participants). The overall body of evidence was considered to be of moderate quality. The meta-analyses of the six trials showed a statistically significant higher number of participants experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67, P value 0.002, heterogeneity: Tau(2) 0.00; Chi(2) 2.87, df = 5 (P value 0.57); I(2) 0%). The number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one person having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 14 to 100), based on an implant failure rate of 6% in participants not receiving antibiotics. There was borderline statistical significance for prosthesis failures (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), with no statistically significant differences for infections (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35), or adverse events (RR 1; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.85) (only two minor adverse events were recorded, one in the placebo group). No conclusive information can be derived from the only trial that compared three different durations of antibiotic prophylaxis since no event (implant/prosthesis failures, infections or adverse events) occurred in any of the 25 participants included in each study group. There were no trials that evaluated different antibiotics or different antibiotic dosages.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Scientific evidence suggests that, in general, antibiotics are beneficial for reducing failure of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. Specifically 2 g or 3 g of amoxicillin given orally, as a single administration, one hour preoperatively significantly reduces failure of dental implants. 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 antibiotic is the most effective.

Effects of antibiotics on dental implants: a review

There are many reasons for dental implant failure, the development of bacteremia is concern for dentists. This is due to the possibility of unfavorable result such as implant loss or the need for re-treatment. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for high risk patients such as individuals with an immunodeficiency, infectious endocarditis, or previous prosthetic instrumentation. However regarding clinically healthy, low and moderate risk individuals the use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. Another major concern regarding the over prescription of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria. A better understanding of the efficacy of prophylactic treatments regarding dental implantation is crucial. Thus a literature review and comparison of survival rates of dental implants with regimens of no, pre or post prophylaxis was performed using systematic literature review using reliable electronic databases. Retrospective or prospective controlled studies were examined for the influence of preoperative and/or postoperative or no antibiosis on dental implant success rate. Of the 11406 implants used in this literature review, cases with no antibiotics had a 92 % success rate, cases with pre-op antibiotic alone had a 96% success rate, cases with post-op antibiotic alone had a 97% success rate and cases with both pre and post-op antibiotic had a success rate of 96%. Thus, the results from this literature review show a > 90% success rate when antibiotics are used compared to when they are not used. Thus, no benefit is seen from the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in low and moderate risk dental implant patients.

KEYWORDS

Dental implants; Pre-operative prophylactics; Post-operative prophylactics; Success rate.

Knowledge and Antibiotics Prescription Pattern among Ugandan Oral Health Care Providers: A Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Irrational prescription of antibiotics by clinicians might lead to drug resistance. Clinicians do prescribe antibiotics for either prophylactic or therapeutic reasons. The decision of when and what to prescribe leaves room for misuse and therefore it is imperative to continuously monitor knowledge and pattern of prescription. The aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge of antibiotic use and the prescription pattern among dental health care practitioners in Uganda.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured and pretested questionnaire was sent to 350 dental health care practitioners by post or physical delivery. All the questionnaires were sent with self-addressed and prepaid postage envelopes to enable re-spondents to mail back the filled questionnaires. Chi-squared test was used to test for any significant differences between groups of respondents based on qualitative variables.

RESULTS

The response rate was 40.3% (n=140). Of these 52.9 % were public health dental officers (PHDOs) and 47.1% were dental surgeons. The males constituted 74.3% of the respondents. There were statistically significant differences be-tween dental surgeons and (PHDOs) in knowledge on prophylactic antibiotic use (P = 0.001) and patient influence on pre-scription (P = 0.001). Amoxicillin, in combination with metronidazole, was the most common combination of antibiotics used followed by co-trimoxazole with metronidazole.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of dental health care practitioners in antibiotic use in this study was generally low. A combi-nation of amoxicillin with metronidazole was the most commonly prescribed antibiotics subsequent to different dental pro-cedures.

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.

A review of dental implants and infection

Dental implants have become increasingly common for the management of tooth loss. Despite their placement in a contaminated surgical field, success rates are relatively high. This article reviews dental implants and highlights factors leading to infection and potential implant failure. A literature search identified studies analysing the microbial composition of peri-implant infections. The microflora of dental peri-implantitis resembles that found in chronic periodontitis, featuring predominantly anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli, in particular Porphyromonas gingivalis and Prevotella intermedia, anaerobic Gram-negative cocci such as Veillonella spp. and spirochaetes including Treponema denticola. The role of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci that are typically encountered in orthopaedic infections is debatable, although they undoubtedly play a role when isolated from clinically infected sites. Likewise, the aetiological involvement of coliforms and Candida spp. requires further longitudinal studies. Currently, there are neither standardised antibiotic prophylactic regimens for dental implant placement nor universally accepted treatment for peri-implantitis. The treatment of infected implants is difficult and usually requires removal. In the UK there is no systematic post-surgical implant surveillance programme. Therefore, the development of such a project would be advisable and provide valuable epidemiological data.

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.

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.