Does the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics Decrease Implant Failure?

Effect of Sinus Floor Augmentation with Platelet-Rich Fibrin Versus Allogeneic Bone Graft on Stability of One-Stage Dental Implants: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Rehabilitation of an edentulous posterior maxilla with dental implants is challenging, and sinus floor augmentation could be considered as an important surgical procedure for bone augmentation in this region before implant placement. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a new-generation platelet concentrate with simplified processing: its application in sinus floor augmentation has been widely investigated in literature. However, the biological properties and actual efficacy of this product remain controversial. This study assessed the effect of sinus floor augmentation with PRF versus freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) on stability of one-stage dental implants. This split-mouth randomized clinical trial evaluated 10 patients who required bilateral sinus floor augmentation. PRF and L-PRF membrane were used in one quadrant while FDBA and collagen membrane were used in the other quadrant. Implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) immediately, and 2, 4, and 6 months after implant placement. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was compared over time and between the two groups using repeated measures ANOVA and independent sample t-test. The mean ISQ significantly increased over time in both groups (p < 0.001). The increase was greater in the PRF group (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, PRF yielded superior results compared with FDBA regarding the stability of one-stage dental implants.

Is Perioperative Antibiotic Necessary in Straightforward Implant Placement Procedures?

The purpose of this nonrandom retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of perioperative antibiotic on early outcomes, including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding, and cyanosis, in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 men, 30 women) who had completed dental implant placement were included in the study. Patients who used perioperative antibiotics comprised the experimental group, and those who did not comprised the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 hour before surgery and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days after surgery. The control group received no perioperative antibiotic therapy. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration, and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and at week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the 2 groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 (P > .05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 than on days 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups (P = .001 and P < .05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within the limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized controlled clinical studies with more patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.

Prophylactic antibiotics for staged bone augmentation in implant dentistry

Background: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on the outcome of bone augmentation and subsequent dental implant placement by combining the recommended quality assessment methods for systematic reviews and primary studies.Materials and methods: This is a complex systematic review in which systematic reviews as well as primary studies are scrutinised. A search of Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE, PubMed and Health technology assessment (HTA) organisations as-well as a complementary hand-search was carried out. Selected primary studies were assessed using GRADE. Each study was reviewed by three authors independently.Results: Abstract screening yielded six potential systematic reviews allocated for full-text inspection. A total of ten primary studies were read in full-text. No relevant systematic reviews regarding the topic of this article were found. The quality assessment resulted in two primary studies with a moderate risk of bias. Of the two studies with a moderate risk of bias, one compared a single dose of clindamycin 600 mg preoperatively with the same preoperative dose followed by four doses of 300 mg every 6 h. The second study compared a single dose prophylaxis of two different types of antibiotic compounds.Conclusion: In conclusion, the scientific evidence regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing the risk of infection in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures during dental implant placement is very limited. The infection rate as compared to nonusage of prophylactic antibiotics, selection of the most suitable compound, and the optimal duration of prophylactic treatment is still unknown.

Prophylactic antibiotic regimens in dental implant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors examine the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) and specific antibiotic regimens for prevention of dental implant failure in patients who are healthy overall.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors independently conducted electronic database and manual searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The authors selected articles on the basis of eligibility criteria and assessed for risk of bias by using the Cochrane Handbook. Implant failure was the primary outcome studied; perimucositis or implantitis, prosthetic failure, and adverse events were secondary outcomes studied. The authors conducted random effects meta-analysis for risk ratios of dichotomous data and used OpenMeta[Analyst] (Center for Evidence Synthesis, Brown School of Public Health) for qualitative assessment of administration schedules.

RESULTS

With duplicates removed, the authors screened 1,022 abstracts, reviewed 21 full-text articles, and included 8 RCTs that included 2,869 implants in 1,585 patients. Meta-analysis results indicated that AP resulted in a statistically significantly lower number of implant failures for all regimens combined (implant, P = .005; patient, P = .002), as well as preoperative (implant, P = .01; patient, P = .007), pre- and postoperative (implant, P = .04), and postoperative AP only (implant, P = .02), compared with no antibiotics. The authors found no statistically significant differences in analysis of comparative antibiotic treatments or secondary outcomes. The authors identified confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although meta-analysis results suggested that AP may reduce implant failure, definitive conclusions cannot be achieved yet. The overall nonsignificant differences reported in individual trials, limitations discussed, implant infection outcomes, and antibiotic-associated risks must be considered. Thus, the results for implant failure outcomes may not warrant the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in patients who are healthy who are receiving dental implants. Investigators must conduct large-scale RCTs to determine the efficacy of AP and various regimens, independent of confounding variables.

Complex systematic review - Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to revisit the available scientific literature regarding perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with implant placement by combining the recommended methods for systematic reviews and complex systematic reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), EMBASE, PubMed and Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations was performed, in addition to a complementary hand-search. Selected systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed using GRADE and AMSTAR, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 846 papers of which 10 primary studies and seven systematic reviews were included. Quality assessment of the systematic reviews revealed two studies of moderate risk of bias and five with high risk of bias. The two systematic reviews of moderate risk of bias stated divergent numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient from implant failure. Four of the primary studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo were estimated to be of low, or moderate, risk of bias and subjected to meta-analysis. The NNT was 50 (pooled RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.02). None of these four studies individually show a statistical significant benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, narrative analysis of the studies eligible for meta-analysis reveals clinical heterogeneity regarding intervention and smoking.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with implant placement reduced the risk for implant loss by 2%. However, the sub-analysis of the primary studies suggests that there is no benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in uncomplicated implant surgery in healthy patient.