在口腔种植体治疗中使用抗生素预防术后并发症的有效性和安全性:循证综述。

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE BDJ Open Pub Date : 2023-10-31 DOI:10.1038/s41405-023-00174-4
Javed Ikram, Rawand Shado, Ines Novo Pereira, David Madruga, Haidar Hassan
{"title":"在口腔种植体治疗中使用抗生素预防术后并发症的有效性和安全性:循证综述。","authors":"Javed Ikram,&nbsp;Rawand Shado,&nbsp;Ines Novo Pereira,&nbsp;David Madruga,&nbsp;Haidar Hassan","doi":"10.1038/s41405-023-00174-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify and critically appraise available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in preventing complications following oral implant placement treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to July/21 for the purpose of answering the research question: In[healthy adults treated with dental implants]the use of[different antibiotics before or immediately after treatment]in comparison to[treatment without antibiotics]is safe and effective in terms of[infection, pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, soft tissue healing, early/late implant failure]? Following the Best Evidence Topic methodology, the included studies were categorised based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) ratings. The critical appraisal skills programme CASP checklist was used for the methodological analysis. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Methodology for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>26 of the 245 initially identified articles met our inclusion criteria for analysis after applying rigorous filters. The included human studies demonstrated significant methodological heterogeneity, precluding meta-analysis. These studies spanned evidence levels II to IV, as per OCEBM 2011 classifications, with the United States contributing the most studies (19.2%, n = 5), all at level III. The United Kingdom and Spain followed with three studies each (11.5% each), two from the UK and one from Spain classified at level II. Most studies had less than 1 year of follow-up (21%). Our analysis included 26 studies, with 38 antibiotic patient groups totalling 7459 patients. Amoxicillin was the predominant antibiotic, with various dosage regimens. Complications were observed in studies across different amoxicillin regimens at a cumulative incidence of 5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence on antibiotics to prevent implant failure presents uncertain and heterogeneous findings. High-risk bias and underpowered studies were prevalent. Future research should prioritise multicentre, double-blinded RCTs with larger samples and longer follow-ups. Structured methodologies, antibiotic stewardship, and adherence to guidelines are needed. Amoxicillin (2 g) was commonly prescribed, but guidelines recommend 3 g, which results in relatively low complications yet there is limited evidence to support it. Clindamycin was favoured for penicillin allergies, but caution is advised due to potential implant failure risk. Consistent use of antiseptic mouthwash was observed. Future research should explore alternatives to antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship. Establishing a well-funded research consortium could yield conclusive results for clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":36997,"journal":{"name":"BDJ Open","volume":"9 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of using antibiotics to prevent post-operative complications in oral implant treatment: evidence-based review.\",\"authors\":\"Javed Ikram,&nbsp;Rawand Shado,&nbsp;Ines Novo Pereira,&nbsp;David Madruga,&nbsp;Haidar Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41405-023-00174-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify and critically appraise available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in preventing complications following oral implant placement treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to July/21 for the purpose of answering the research question: In[healthy adults treated with dental implants]the use of[different antibiotics before or immediately after treatment]in comparison to[treatment without antibiotics]is safe and effective in terms of[infection, pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, soft tissue healing, early/late implant failure]? Following the Best Evidence Topic methodology, the included studies were categorised based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) ratings. The critical appraisal skills programme CASP checklist was used for the methodological analysis. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Methodology for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>26 of the 245 initially identified articles met our inclusion criteria for analysis after applying rigorous filters. The included human studies demonstrated significant methodological heterogeneity, precluding meta-analysis. These studies spanned evidence levels II to IV, as per OCEBM 2011 classifications, with the United States contributing the most studies (19.2%, n = 5), all at level III. The United Kingdom and Spain followed with three studies each (11.5% each), two from the UK and one from Spain classified at level II. Most studies had less than 1 year of follow-up (21%). Our analysis included 26 studies, with 38 antibiotic patient groups totalling 7459 patients. Amoxicillin was the predominant antibiotic, with various dosage regimens. Complications were observed in studies across different amoxicillin regimens at a cumulative incidence of 5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence on antibiotics to prevent implant failure presents uncertain and heterogeneous findings. High-risk bias and underpowered studies were prevalent. Future research should prioritise multicentre, double-blinded RCTs with larger samples and longer follow-ups. Structured methodologies, antibiotic stewardship, and adherence to guidelines are needed. Amoxicillin (2 g) was commonly prescribed, but guidelines recommend 3 g, which results in relatively low complications yet there is limited evidence to support it. Clindamycin was favoured for penicillin allergies, but caution is advised due to potential implant failure risk. Consistent use of antiseptic mouthwash was observed. Future research should explore alternatives to antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship. Establishing a well-funded research consortium could yield conclusive results for clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BDJ Open\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618562/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BDJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00174-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BDJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00174-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定并严格评估抗生素在预防口腔植入治疗后并发症方面的有效性和安全性的现有证据。方法:使用PubMed进行电子检索,Ovid MEDLINE和Cochrane Library数据库截至2021年7月,目的是回答研究问题:在[接受牙科植入物治疗的健康成年人]中,与[不使用抗生素的治疗]相比,在治疗前或治疗后立即使用[不同的抗生素]是安全有效的[感染、疼痛、肿胀、伤口裂开、软组织愈合、早期/晚期植入失败]?根据最佳证据主题方法,纳入的研究根据牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)的评级进行分类。关键评估技能方案CASP检查表用于方法分析。根据Cochrane干预措施系统评价方法进行偏倚风险评估。结果:245篇最初确定的文章中,有26篇在应用严格的过滤器后符合我们的纳入标准进行分析。纳入的人类研究显示出显著的方法异质性,排除了荟萃分析。根据OCEBM 2011的分类,这些研究涵盖了证据级别II至IV,其中美国贡献了最多的研究(19.2%,n = 5) ,均为III级。随后,英国和西班牙各进行了三项研究(各占11.5%),其中两项来自英国,一项来自西班牙,均为II级。大多数研究的随访时间不到1年(21%)。我们的分析包括26项研究,38个抗生素患者组共7459名患者。阿莫西林是主要的抗生素,有不同的剂量方案。在不同阿莫西林方案的研究中观察到并发症的累积发生率为5%。结论:抗生素预防植入失败的证据存在不确定性和异质性。高风险偏见和研究不足普遍存在。未来的研究应优先考虑多中心、双盲随机对照试验,具有更大的样本和更长的随访时间。需要结构化的方法、抗生素管理和遵守指南。阿莫西林(2 g) 通常是处方药,但指南建议3 g、 这导致相对较低的并发症,但支持它的证据有限。克林霉素对青霉素过敏是有利的,但由于潜在的植入失败风险,建议谨慎。观察到持续使用防腐漱口水。未来的研究应该探索抗生素的替代品和抗生素管理。建立一个资金充足的研究联盟可以为临床实践产生决定性的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Efficacy and safety of using antibiotics to prevent post-operative complications in oral implant treatment: evidence-based review.

Aims: To identify and critically appraise available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in preventing complications following oral implant placement treatment.

Methods: An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to July/21 for the purpose of answering the research question: In[healthy adults treated with dental implants]the use of[different antibiotics before or immediately after treatment]in comparison to[treatment without antibiotics]is safe and effective in terms of[infection, pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, soft tissue healing, early/late implant failure]? Following the Best Evidence Topic methodology, the included studies were categorised based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) ratings. The critical appraisal skills programme CASP checklist was used for the methodological analysis. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Methodology for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Results: 26 of the 245 initially identified articles met our inclusion criteria for analysis after applying rigorous filters. The included human studies demonstrated significant methodological heterogeneity, precluding meta-analysis. These studies spanned evidence levels II to IV, as per OCEBM 2011 classifications, with the United States contributing the most studies (19.2%, n = 5), all at level III. The United Kingdom and Spain followed with three studies each (11.5% each), two from the UK and one from Spain classified at level II. Most studies had less than 1 year of follow-up (21%). Our analysis included 26 studies, with 38 antibiotic patient groups totalling 7459 patients. Amoxicillin was the predominant antibiotic, with various dosage regimens. Complications were observed in studies across different amoxicillin regimens at a cumulative incidence of 5%.

Conclusion: The evidence on antibiotics to prevent implant failure presents uncertain and heterogeneous findings. High-risk bias and underpowered studies were prevalent. Future research should prioritise multicentre, double-blinded RCTs with larger samples and longer follow-ups. Structured methodologies, antibiotic stewardship, and adherence to guidelines are needed. Amoxicillin (2 g) was commonly prescribed, but guidelines recommend 3 g, which results in relatively low complications yet there is limited evidence to support it. Clindamycin was favoured for penicillin allergies, but caution is advised due to potential implant failure risk. Consistent use of antiseptic mouthwash was observed. Future research should explore alternatives to antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship. Establishing a well-funded research consortium could yield conclusive results for clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BDJ Open
BDJ Open Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
34
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of topical anesthetics of lidocaine, benzocaine, and EMLA in reducing pain during inferior alveolar nerve block in schoolchildren: a randomized controlled trial. Incidence of traumatic dental injuries associated with orotracheal intubation in general anesthesia in children during mixed dentition in Damascus, Syria: a prospective longitudinal study. Comparative evaluation of sealing ability and adaptation of gel form of MTA to dentinal walls: an in-vitro study. Knowledge and awareness of emergency department residents and physicians regarding the management of dentofacial traumatic injuries: a cross-sectional study. Evaluation of two different self-disinfection alginate impression material.
×
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