Does antibiotic prophylaxis at implant placement decrease early implant failures? A Cochrane systematic review

School of Dentistry, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
European Journal of Oral Implantology (Impact Factor: 3.14). 06/2010; 3(2):101-10.
Source: PubMed


CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: Marco Esposito is the first author of two of the included studies; however, he was not involved in the quality assessment of these trials. This review is based on a Cochrane systematic review entitled 'Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications' published in The Cochrane Library (see for more information). Cochrane systematic reviews are regularly updated to include new research, and in response to comments and criticisms from readers. If you wish to comment on this review, please send your comments to the Cochrane website or to Marco Esposito. The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. The results of a Cochrane Review can be interpreted differently, depending on people's perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of the review authors, and are not necessarily shared by the Cochrane Collaboration.
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.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 2 June 2010 for 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.). 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. Meta-analyses were conducted.
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 four times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the four trials showed a statistically significantly higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: risk ratio=0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.84). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 33 (95% CI 17-100), 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.
There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 h 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 post-operative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic.

74 Reads
  • Source
    • "This pharmacological regimen is based on clinical experience and indirect evidence. In implant dentistry, there is a trend that favor the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce infections [23] [24]. With regard to preop or postoperative corticosteroid therapy, a common consensus was reached regarding the use of corticosteroid but not on the dosage due to the heterogeneity of the pharmacological regimens utilized by the different experts. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. Maxillary sinus surgery is a reliable and predictable treatment option for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla. Nevertheless, these interventions are not riskless of postoperative complications with respect to implant positioning in pristine bone. Aim. The aim of this paper is to report the results of a clinical consensus of experts (periodontists, implantologists, maxillofacial surgeons, ENT, and microbiology specialists) on several clinical questions and to give clinical recommendations on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat postoperative infections. Materials and Methods. A panel of experts in different fields of dentistry and medicine, after having reviewed the available literature on the topic and taking into account their long-standing clinical experience, gave their response to a series of clinical questions and reached a consensus. Results and Conclusion. The incidence of postop infections is relatively low (2%–5.6%). A multidisciplinary approach is advisable. A list of clinical recommendation are given.
    International Journal of Dentistry 08/2012; 2012(1):365809. DOI:10.1155/2012/365809
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fecha de recibido: 8 de noviembre de 2011 Fecha de aprobación: 10 de enero de 2012 Palabras clave: implante dental; infección; control de infección dental; profilaxis antibiótica. Resumen Introducción. Persiste la controversia en cuanto a la superioridad de la profilaxis sobre el tratamiento antimicrobiano para evitar la infección posquirúrgica. Objetivo. Comparar el control de la infección bacteriana mediante el uso de profilaxis con el tratamiento antimicrobiano en pacientes sometidos a implantes. Materiales y métodos. Los pacientes de la muestra (n=30), con edades entre los 30 y los 70 años de edad, se asignaron aleatoriamente en dos grupos. Quince recibieron profilaxis de 2 g de amoxicilina 30 minutos antes de la cirugía y los restantes recibieron tratamiento de 500 mg de amoxicilina cada ocho horas por siete días. Se valoraron los signos de infección –dolor, rubor, tumefacción y exudación– a los 3, 8 y 15 días después del procedimiento. Una semana después se determinó el número de leucocitos, neutrófilos y linfocitos. Las variables categóricas se compararon mediante la prueba de ji al cuadrado y razón de verosimilitud. Los contrastes numéricos se valoraron mediante la prueba t de Student, según la validación de los supuestos de normalidad y homocedasticidad (α=0,05, en todos los casos). Resultados. La proporción de infección fue menor en el grupo de profilaxis que en el grupo de tratamiento. El grupo de profilaxis tuvo una menor proporción de signos y síntomas de infección (6,7 % Vs. 13,3 %), sin alcanzar significancia estadística (p=0,27). El promedio de la fracción de leucocitos, linfocitos y neutrófilos en el cuadro hemático, estuvo dentro del rango de normalidad en los dos grupos (p=0,79, p=0,91 y p=0,82, respectivamente). Conclusiones. La menor proporción de infección confirma los resultados previamente publicados, que sustentan la superioridad de la profilaxis antibiótica sobre el tratamiento antibiótico para prevenir las infecciones posquirúrgicas.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to evaluate the influence of restoration on marginal bone loss (MBL) using immediately definitive abutments (one abutment–one time concept) versus provisional abutments later replaced by definitive abutments. In three private clinics, 32 patients with 32 hopeless maxillary premolars were selected for post-extractive implant-supported immediate restoration and randomised to provisional abutment (PA) and definitive abutment (DA) groups, 16 sites in each group. After tooth extraction, 7 patients had to be excluded for buccal wall fracture at tooth extraction or lack of sufficient primary implant stability (< 35 Ncm). The remaining 25 patients (10 PA, 15 DA) received a post-extractive wide-diameter implant. Immediately after insertion, the PA group were immediately restored using a platform-switched provisional titanium abutment. In the DA group, definitive platform-switched titanium abutments were tightened. In both groups, provisional crowns were adapted, avoiding occlusal contacts. All implants were definitively restored after 3 months. In the PA group, a traditional impression technique with coping transfer was adopted, dis/reconnecting abutments several times; in the DA group, metal prefabricated copings were used and final restorations were seated, avoiding abutment disconnection. Digital standardised periapical radiographs using a customised film holder were recorded at baseline (T₀ = implant insertion), final restoration (T₁ = 3 months later), and at 18-month (T₂) and 3-year (T₃) follow-ups. The MBL was evaluated with a computerised measuring technique and digital subtraction radiography (DSR) software was used to evaluate radiographic density. At the 3-year follow-up a success rate of 100% in both groups was reported. In the PA group, peri-implant bone resorption was 0.36 mm at T₁, 0.43 mm at T₂, and 0.55 mm at T₃. In the DA group, peri-implant bone resorption was 0.35 mm at T₁, 0.33 mm at T₂, and 0.34 mm at T₃. Statistically significant lower bone losses were found at T₂ (0.1 mm) and T₃ (0.2 mm) for the DA group. At T₃, significantly higher DSR values around implant necks were recorded in the DA group (72 ± 5.0) when compared with the PA group (52 ± 9.5). The current trial suggests that the 'one abutment–one time' concept might be a possible additional strategy in post-extraction immediately restored platform-switched single implants to further minimise peri-implant crestal bone resorption, although a 0.2 mm difference may not have any clinical effect. Additional clinical trials with larger groups of patients should be performed to better investigate this hypothesis.
    European Journal of Oral Implantology 12/2010; 3(4):285-96. · 3.14 Impact Factor
Show more