Does the use of prophylactic antibiotics decrease implant failure?

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. Given the known risks of antibiotic treatment and lack of consensus on using antibiotics at the time of implant insertion, the purpose of this article was to review available studies on use of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics at the time of implant placement and to provide evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic use. The reviewed studies suggest that a single preoperative dose of 2 g amoxicillin 1 hour before implant placement or 1 g amoxicillin 1 hour preoperatively and 500 mg 4 times daily 2 days postoperatively can reduce the rate of implant failure.     

Antibiotics to prevent complications following dental implant treatment

A substantive amendment to this systematic review was last made on 15 March 2003. Cochrane reviews are regularly checked and updated if necessary. 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 antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. It would be useful to know whether prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing failures of dental implants. Objectives T o 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 Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow‐up of at least three 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 per cent confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. Main Results No RCTs were identified. Reviewers' 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.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis patterns of Finnish dentists performing dental implant surgery

Background. The peri-operative use of prophylactic antibiotics in clinically healthy patients undergoing dental implant surgery is very common in Finland. While antibiotics are prescribed with the hope of preventing both local and systemic complications, their application and utilization is not uniform. Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the variation in prescribing patterns among Finnish dentists performing dental implant placement operations. This study also aimed to examine the possible relationship between early implant removal and the use of the prophylactic antibiotics in Finland. Materials and methods. The National Institute for Health and Welfare in Finland granted permission to access the Finnish Dental Implant Register. The peri-operative antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing patterns were assessed in a total of 110 543 dental implant placement procedures and 1038 dental implant removal operations performed in Finland between April 1994 and April 2012. Results. A total of 61 different antibiotics or combinations were prescribed peri-operatively during implant placements in Finland between 1994–2012. Phenoxymethylpenicillin was the most commonly prescribed drug (72.2%). No statistically significant difference in early implant removal rates could be found between patients who had or had not received peri-operative prophylaxis. However, patients who had received peri-operative prophylaxis had statistically significant longer implant survival rates. Conclusion. There is a variation in antibiotic prescribing patterns among Finnish dentists placing dental implants. The results suggest that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has little effect on the prevention of primary implant surgery-related complications and, hence, success rates.     

Efficacy of two antibiotic regimens in the reduction of early dental implant failure: a pilot study

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two antibiotic regimens in reducing early dental implant failure. A preoperative single-dose regimen and a 3-day antibiotic course were compared. Eighty subjects needing dental implant placement were randomly allocated to one of the two antibiotic prophylaxis regimen groups. In the first group, dental implants were placed after the administration of a single preoperative dose of antibiotic (1 g of amoxicillin); no postoperative antibiotics were given. In the second group, dental implants were inserted in patients who received the same preoperative dose of antibiotic as the first group, but the antibiotic was then continued postoperatively for 3 days. Patients returned for postoperative evaluation at 3 days, 7 days, and 12 weeks. The surgical sites were assessed for pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, and pus formation. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, probably because of the limited number of patients. Although minor complications were seen in a few patients, all implants were successfully osseointegrated. Until a study with a larger population rules definitively on the role of antibiotics in implant surgery, a single dose of antibiotic before implant placement may be sufficient.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry: a review and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association, or AHA, and the American Dental Association recently changed their recommended protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis against bacterial endocarditis. A new recommendation also has been issued by the ADA and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or AAOS, against routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements. These changes reflect increasing scientific evidence and professional experience in opposition to widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis in these specific situations and others faced in dentistry. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical and dental literature for scientific evidence regarding the use of antibiotics to prevent local and systemic infections associated with dental treatment. Situations commonly considered by dentists for potential use of prophylactic antibiotics were reviewed to determine current evidence with regard to use of antimicrobial agents. This included prevention of distant spread of oral organisms to susceptible sites elsewhere in the body and the reduction of local infections associated with oral procedures. RESULTS: There are relatively few situations in which antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated. Aside from the clearly defined instances of endocarditis and late prosthetic joint infections, there is no consensus among experts on the need for prophylaxis. There is wide variation in recommended protocols, but little scientific basis for the recommendations. The emerging trend seems to be to avoid the prophylactic use of antibiotics in conjunction with dental treatment unless there is a clear indication. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from the specific situations described, there is little or no scientific basis for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry. The risk of inappropriate used of antibiotics and widespread antibiotic resistance appear to be far more important than any possible perceived benefit. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists are wise to use antibiotic prophylaxis in only those specific situations in which there is a valid scientific basis for it. Whenever possible, dentists should follow the standard protocols recommended by the ADA, AHA or AAOS.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis for children with sickle cell disease: a survey of pediatric dentistry residency program directors and pediatric hematologists

PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to: (1) investigate the current clinical practice regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis by pediatric dentistry residency program directors and pediatric hematologists for children with sickle cell disease (SCD) requiring dental treatment; and (2) evaluate the perceived relative risk of bacteremia following specific dental procedures, as defined by pediatric dentistry residency program directors and pediatric hematologists. METHODS: A written survey depicting various clinical scenarios of SCD children requiring common dental procedures was mailed to directors of pediatric dental advanced education programs and distributed to pediatric hematologists attending the 2003 Annual Sickle Cell Disease Association of America conference in Washington, DC. RESULTS: Surveys were returned by 60% (N=34/57) of the pediatric dentistry residency program directors. The surveys were obtained from 51% of pediatric hematologists at the meeting (N=72/140). At least 50% of all respondents recommended prophylaxis for the following clinical situations: dental extractions, treatment under general anesthesia, and status post splenectomy. The perceived risk of infectious complication was highest for extractions, followed by restorative treatment and tooth polishing. Dental residency program directors were more likely (71%, N=24/34) to recommend additional antibiotic therapy for patients taking penicillin prophylaxis if they required an invasive oral surgical procedure. Conversely, only 38% (N=25/66) of pediatric hematologists recommended additional antibiotic therapy (P=.001). Eighty-six percent of dental residency program directors (N=25/29) chose amoxicillin for prophylaxis whereas only 62% of pediatric hematologists (N=36/58) recommended amoxicillin. (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis in SCD children undergoing dental treatments. Further research and risk/benefit assessment is needed to create a unified approach.     

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.     

Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate,when early,when late?

Implant placement in post‐extraction sites of single teeth in the esthetic zone has been a topic of great interest in the field of implant dentistry since 1990. Triggered by the development of guided bone regeneration, the concept of immediate implant placement became quite popular in the 1990s. In the past 12 years, however, the dental community has begun to focus increasingly on the esthetic outcomes of post‐extraction implant placement and several studies indicated a significant risk for the development of mucosal recessions with immediate implants. Parallel with this, significant progress has been made in the understanding of tissue biology in terms of hard and soft tissue alterations post extraction, based on preclinical, clinical and radiological studies. This knowledge has helped better to understand the etiology of these esthetic complications with immediate implant placement. The present review first analyzes the various phases of the development of therapeutic strategies over the years for post‐extraction implant placement in single tooth sites in the esthetic zone. It presents the current knowledge concerning the terminology with immediate, early and late implant placement, the risk factors for the development of esthetic complications, and the selection criteria for the various treatment options. In the second part, clinical recommendations are given, since a clinician active in this field of implant therapy can use all treatment options depending on the preoperative analysis including a 3D cone beam computed tomography. The selection criteria for all four treatment options are presented and documented with typical case reports to illustrate the current treatment approaches applied in daily practice.     

Single preoperative dose versus long-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens in dental implant surgery

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic regimens commonly used in dental implant surgery. Preoperative single-dose and long-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-center prospective study in which 215 patients underwent ambulatory endosseous implant placement. In the first group, 445 dental implants were placed in 125 patients after the administration of a single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotic with no postoperative antibiotics. In the second group, 302 dental implants were placed in 90 patients who received a preoperative dose of antibiotics and were instructed to take antibiotics postoperatively for 7 days. In both groups, 0.12% chlorhexidine pre- and postoperative mouth rinses were used. Patients returned for postoperative evaluation at 1 week, 2 weeks, and just prior to surgical uncovering. The surgical sites were assessed for pain, swelling, erythema, and purulence. RESULTS: In the first group, 3 patients developed wound dehiscence at 5 implant sites and 1 developed a minor inflammatory response. None of the patients in this group received further antibiotics. In the second group, 3 patients developed wound dehiscence, 2 developed an inflammatory response, and 1 was diagnosed with infection, for which another course of antibiotics was required. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups according to the Fisher 2 x 4 exact test (P = .56). DISCUSSION: Indiscriminate use of antibiotics is unacceptable in clinical practice today. Surgeons must adhere to basic principles to gain the most benefit from the use of prophylactic antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Long-term prophylactic antibiotic use in implant surgery was of no advantage or benefit over a single-dose preoperative antibiotic regimen in this patient population.     

A study of prophylactic antibiotic prescribing in National Health Service general dental practice in England

OBJECTIVE: To study the use of prophylactic antibiotics by general dental practitioners. DESIGN: A postal questionnaire of National Health Service (NHS) general dental practitioners in ten English Health Authorities. SUBJECTS: General dental practitioners (GDPs) (1544) contracted to provide NHS treatment in the Health Authorities of Liverpool, Wirral, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Sheffield, Newcastle, Northumberland and North Tyneside. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaires were analysed and the responses to each question expressed as absolute frequencies. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaires were received from 929 (60.1%) practitioners. Over 40% of general dental practitioners would prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients with no relevant medical history for minor oral surgery to prevent postoperative infection. Amoxicillin was the predominant choice of antibiotic in this situation. Between 15-67% of GDPs failed to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for at risk medically compromised patients. GDPs also prescribed for patients with a medical history not known to be at risk from dental procedures. Over 50% of GDPs however, would seek specialist advice about prophylaxis if they were unsure of the indications and over 90% of GDPs indicated they would use the current recommended regime for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at risk of infective endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this study suggests that a significant number of the practitioners surveyed prescribe prophylactic antibiotics inappropriately, both for surgical procedures and for patients at risk from endocarditis. There is also evidence that practitioners prescribe antibiotic prophylaxis for clinical procedures and medical conditions for which there is little evidence. The results suggest that there is a need for the development of guidelines for practitioners on the appropriate prophylactic use of antibiotics.     

Demystifying medical complexities

Although dentists often fear treating medically complex patients, in many cases this fear may be based not on scientific facts but rather on a "mythology" of the dangers of dentistry. Dentistry is a remarkably safe profession, even for most medically complex patients. The myths of endocarditis, artificial joint infections, local anesthetics and vasoconstrictors, dental surgery in anticoagulated patients and patients on antiplatelet drugs, and antibiotic interference with oral contraceptives are discussed. Although dental treatment is not usually a risk factor for endocarditis, practitioners should consult the 1997 American Heart Association statement for recommendations for endocarditis prevention. Most artificial joint patients should not receive antibiotic prophylaxis. Local anesthetics and vasoconstrictors can be used safely in most medically complex patients. Neither continuous anticoagulation nor antiplatelet medications should be withdrawn for dental surgery. Scientific studies have failed to document an interaction between antibiotics used in dentistry and oral contraceptives.     

Retention of teeth versus extraction and implant placement: treatment preferences of dental faculty and dental students

The purpose of this study was to determine the treatment preferences amongst dental faculty and dental students for either retention of teeth by endodontic and restorative treatment or extraction and implant placement. A survey of 134 general dentistry faculty and 253 senior (fourth-year) dental students was conducted in a university college of dentistry. Participants completed a survey consisting of questions for which one of two choices could be selected. For questions describing specific clinical situations, dental faculty and dental students more frequently selected endodontic and restorative treatment over extraction and implant placement. However, dental students selected implants more frequently than dental faculty, and more recent graduates on the dental faculty selected implants more frequently than less recent graduates on the dental faculty. In addition, there was an increase in the selection of implants, for all participant groups, as the prosthetic and endodontic complexities of the clinical situations increased. Participants were more likely to select endodontics rather than implants for medically compromised patients, and an implant was overwhelmingly selected over a fixed bridge for the replacement of a single tooth unit. In conclusion, the findings of this study indicate that retention of teeth is preferred, but there may be an increased preference toward implants in the future.     

Immediate placement of bone level Sraumann implants: a case series

Endosseous dental implants have revolutionized the methods clinicians use to treat edentulous and partially edentulous patients. Traditional implant protocol specifies a healing period of several months after tooth extraction, as well as an unloaded healing period prior to restoration. Over the last decade, numerous studies have documented successful immediate placement of endosseous dental implants in fresh extraction sites and have found positive results with early functional loading. The purpose of this article is to present a clinical treatment protocol for the immediate placement and early loading of dental implants and to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the SLActive surface Straumann Bone Level implant placed in either maxillary or mandibular fresh extraction sockets.     

Use of primary tooth as a surgical guide in implant insertion: a case report

A variety of surgical templates are being used routinely in implant dentistry to guide a surgeon in proper implant insertion. One additional technique is being suggested in this article. It relates to the placement of a dental implant immediately after extraction of the retained primary molar, using the crown of the deciduous tooth as a surgical guide for implant insertion. The clinical case and related technique are presented in this article.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis: time to reconsider

Some cardiac conditions require antibiotic prophylaxis for some types of dental treatment to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis (IE). All medical and dental practitioners are familiar with this practice but tend to use different regimens in apparently similar circumstances. Generally, the trend has been to prescribe antibiotics if in doubt. This review explores the evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent IE: does it work and is it safe? The changing nature of IE, the role of bacteraemia of oral origin and the safety of antibiotics are also reviewed. Most developed countries have national guidelines and their points of similarity and difference are discussed. One can only agree with the authority who describes antibiotic guidelines for endocarditis as being 'like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are fragmentary, imperfect, capable of various interpretations and (mainly) missing!' Clinical case-controlled studies show that the more widely antibiotics are used, the greater the risk of adverse reactions exceeding the risk of IE. However, the consensus is that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory for a small number of high-risk cardiac and high-risk dental procedures. There are a large number of low-risk cardiac and dental procedures in which the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics exceeds the risk of IE, where prophylaxis should not be provided. There is an intermediate group of cardiac and dental procedures for which careful individual evaluation should be made to determine whether IE or antibiotics pose the greater risk. These categories are presented. All medical and dental practitioners need to reconsider their approach in light of these current findings.     

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

The benefits of prophylactic antibiotics are well recognized in dentistry. However, their routine use in the placement of endosseous dental implants remains controversial. As part of the comprehensive Dental Implant Clinical Research Group (DICRG) clinical implant study, the preoperative or postoperative use of antibiotics, the type used, and the duration of coverage were left to the discretion of the surgeon. These data for 2,973 implants were recorded and correlated with failure of osseointegration during healing (Stage 1), at surgical uncovering (Stage 2), before loading the prosthesis (Stage 3), and from prosthesis loading to 36 months (Stage 4). The results showed a significantly higher survival rate at each stage of treatment in patients who had received preoperative antibiotics.     

2型糖尿病患者术前预防性应用抗生素对口腔种植疗效的影响：3~5年回顾性研究

目的 评价血糖控制良好和轻度控制不良的2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者口腔种植术前应用抗生素对口腔种植疗效的影响,研究术前预防性应用抗生素的必要性。方法 回顾2014年5月—2016年5月于上海市闵行区中心医院口腔科就诊并接受口腔种植治疗的控制良好和轻度控制不良的T2DM患者,随访3~5年,开展临床检查和影像学评价。采用SPSS 20.0软件包分别进行t检验和χ²检验,分析组间差别,并采用Kaplan-Meier方法计算生存率。结果 共纳入种植修复的T2DM患者57例,其中血糖控制良好组30例（用药13例,未用药17例）,血糖轻度控制不良组27例（用药15例,未用药12例）。全部患者术后3 d和7 d复查时,创口愈合良好,未见明显红肿。回访期种植体留存率、探诊出血指数%、改良菌斑指数、种植体周探诊深度、边缘骨吸收量等指标均无统计学差异。结论 口腔种植术前预防性使用抗生素不能改善种植术后创口愈合过程、口腔种植长期留存率和边缘骨吸收状况。控制良好和轻度控制不良的T2DM患者,口腔种植术前预防性系统性应用抗生素的必要性缺乏足够的证据支持。     

Simple preservation of a maxillary extraction socket using beta-tricalcium phosphate with type I collagen: preliminary clinical and histomorphometric observations

Alveolar atrophy following tooth extraction remains a challenge for future dental implant placement. Immediate implant placement and postextraction alveolar preservation are 2 methods that are used to prevent significant postextraction bone loss. In this article, we report the management of a maxillary tooth extraction socket using an alveolar preservation technique involving placement of a cone of beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta -TCP) combined with type I collagen without the use of barrier membranes or flap surgery. Clinical examination revealed solid new bone formation 9 months after the procedure. At the time of implant placement, histomorphometric analysis of the biopsied bone showed that it contained 62.6% mineralized bone, 21.1% bone marrow and 16.3% residual beta -TCP graft. The healed bone was able to support subsequent dental implant placement and loading.