Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and early implant failure: is there a link?

Q3 Dentistry Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1038/s41432-024-01086-4
Mojtaba Mehrabanian, Hassan Mivehchi, Mojtaba Dorri
{"title":"Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and early implant failure: is there a link?","authors":"Mojtaba Mehrabanian, Hassan Mivehchi, Mojtaba Dorri","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01086-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases (PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to October 1st, 2023. Manual screening of reference lists was performed, alongside searches in clinical trial registries to ensure comprehensive coverage. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotics or placebo in systemically healthy individuals undergoing dental implant surgery were included. Studies with a high risk of bias, non-randomized studies, and those without a placebo or control group were excluded. Studies focusing on medically compromised patients or other implant techniques (such as mini-implants or immediate placement in sites with apical pathology) were also excluded. Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved through discussion among all review authors. The risk of bias for each included randomized controlled trial (RCT) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB-2). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was checked with both the I² statistic and Q test. A total of 1267 studies were initially identified, with seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria, comprising data from 1,859 participants and 3014 implants. Four studies were high quality, and three were of moderate quality. Meta-analyses of these studies showed no statistically significant association between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and a reduction in early dental implant failure (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30–1.47). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one implant failure was 143, indicating a limited effect of antibiotics in preventing early implant failure. The study concluded that routine antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the risk of early implant failure in medically fit patients. Given the very limited benefit and the concern of increasing antibiotic resistance, routine use of antibiotics in dental implant surgery should be avoided.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 4","pages":"206-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01086-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01086-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases (PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to October 1st, 2023. Manual screening of reference lists was performed, alongside searches in clinical trial registries to ensure comprehensive coverage. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotics or placebo in systemically healthy individuals undergoing dental implant surgery were included. Studies with a high risk of bias, non-randomized studies, and those without a placebo or control group were excluded. Studies focusing on medically compromised patients or other implant techniques (such as mini-implants or immediate placement in sites with apical pathology) were also excluded. Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved through discussion among all review authors. The risk of bias for each included randomized controlled trial (RCT) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB-2). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was checked with both the I² statistic and Q test. A total of 1267 studies were initially identified, with seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria, comprising data from 1,859 participants and 3014 implants. Four studies were high quality, and three were of moderate quality. Meta-analyses of these studies showed no statistically significant association between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and a reduction in early dental implant failure (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30–1.47). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one implant failure was 143, indicating a limited effect of antibiotics in preventing early implant failure. The study concluded that routine antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the risk of early implant failure in medically fit patients. Given the very limited benefit and the concern of increasing antibiotic resistance, routine use of antibiotics in dental implant surgery should be avoided.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常规抗生素预防与早期植入失败:两者之间有联系吗?
数据来源:截至 2023 年 10 月 1 日,在多个数据库(PubMed 通过 MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science)中进行了系统检索。同时还对参考文献列表进行了人工筛选,并在临床试验登记处进行了搜索,以确保研究的全面覆盖:仅纳入对接受牙科种植手术的全身健康者进行抗生素预防与不使用抗生素或安慰剂比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。不包括偏倚风险高的研究、非随机研究以及没有安慰剂或对照组的研究。此外,还排除了针对病情严重的患者或其他种植技术(如微型种植体或在根尖病变部位即刻种植)的研究:数据提取由两位作者独立完成,存在分歧时由所有综述作者讨论解决。采用科克伦偏倚风险工具(RoB-2)评估了每项纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)的偏倚风险。证据质量采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架进行评估。采用随机效应模型进行 Meta 分析,并通过 I² 统计量和 Q 检验检查异质性:最初共确定了 1267 项研究,最终有 7 项随机对照试验 (RCT) 符合纳入标准,包括来自 1859 名参与者和 3014 个植入物的数据。其中四项研究质量较高,三项研究质量中等。对这些研究进行的元分析表明,使用抗生素预防与减少早期牙科植入失败之间并无统计学意义(RR:0.66,95% CI:0.30-1.47)。预防一次种植失败所需的治疗次数(NNT)为143次,这表明抗生素在预防早期种植失败方面的效果有限:研究得出结论:常规抗生素预防并不能显著降低体格健壮的患者早期种植失败的风险。鉴于抗生素的作用非常有限,而且抗生素耐药性的增加令人担忧,因此应避免在牙科种植手术中常规使用抗生素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of school-based oral health education interventions on oral health status and oral hygiene behaviors among schoolchildren: an umbrella review. Does adopting a healthy diet improve periodontal parameters in patients susceptible to periodontal disease? A systematic review. Effectiveness of 'video-based interventions' of toothbrushing over other interventions on improvement of oral hygiene in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): a systematic review and meta-analysis. How can we remove erroneous penicillin allergy labels? Auxillary aids for pain and anxiety reduction during dental local anesthesia in pediatric patients: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1