Antibiotic Use in Dental Implant Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if there is evidence to support whether antibiotic (AB) use can effectively reduce postoperative infections after dental implant placements (DIPs). Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed and registered on the PROSPERO© database. Searches were performed using PubMed®, Science Direct® and the Cochrane© Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics, independent of the regimen used, versus a placebo, control or no therapy based on implant failure due to infection was the primary measured outcome. Secondary outcomes were other post-surgical complications due to infection and AB adverse events. Results: Twelve RCTs were identified and analysed. Antibiotic use was reported to be statistically significant in preventing infection (p < 001). The prevention of complications was not statistically significant (p = 0.96), and the NNT was >5 (14 and 2523 respectively), which indicates that the intervention was not sufficiently effective to justify its use. The occurrence of side effects was not statistically significant (p = 0.63). NNH was 528 indicating that possible harm caused by the use of ABs is very small and does not negate the AB use when indicated. Conclusion: The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in dental implant placement was found to be not sufficiently effective to justify routine use. Clear clinical assessment pathways, such as those used for medical conditions, based on the patients' age, dental risk factors, such as oral health and bone health, physical risk factors, such as chronic or long-term conditions and modifiable health determinants, such as smoking, are required to prevent the unnecessary use of antibiotics.

The Role of Antibiotic Use in Third Molar Tooth Extractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Anecdotal evidence suggested variation in practices for antibiotic prescribing around dental procedures including route of administration of antibiotics, timing of the course prescribed (before, after or both), length of course prescribed, narrow vs. broad spectrum agents prescribed, use of single or combination of antibiotics, and the use of loading doses. This review aims to investigate this disparity of practices and the absence of global and local recent consensus on the most appropriate antibiotic interventions around invasive dental procedures. Material and methods: Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed, reviewed, and entered on the PROSPERO© website prior to commencement. Ethics approval was gained from the University of Wolverhampton Committee. Searches were performed using PubMed©, Science Direct™, and the Cochrane Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. They investigated studies examining the efficacy and safety of any antibiotic regimen tested, independent of regimen used, versus a placebo, control, or no therapy, on outcomes in post third molar extraction. Results: The primary outcome of interest was postoperative infection and secondary outcomes were other post-surgical related complications of infectious nature and antibiotic adverse events. Sixteen RCTs were identified that met the selection criteria. Antibiotic use was reported to be safe, causing few adverse events. Meta-analysis of infection events showed antibiotics reduced the risk of an infection by 69%, but routine use for prophylaxis in uncomplicated procedures was not supported, and their role in patients with comorbidities or impaired immunity remains controversial. The effect on the incidence of dry socket showed no difference based upon regimen used. No significant benefit was found with respect to reduction of intraoral inflammation, wound dehiscence, haematoma, and lymphadenopathy. Conclusion: The effect on postoperative pain reduction was inconclusive. Routine use of antibiotics around M3 extraction procedures is not supported, but their use in the presence of co-morbidities and or immunosuppression remains controversial to be confirmed by future studies.

A survey of dental professionals' opinions around the use of antibiotics in molar 3 extractions and dental implant placement.

Aim: This survey was conducted to determine the type and frequency of antibiotics (AB) use for the prevention of infections in dental third molar (M3) extraction and implantation procedures (DIP) among UK dentists and the opinions underpinning their practice. Methods and design: Systematic reviews of the evidence were undertaken alongside this survey of practicing dentists in the United Kingdom to identify the opinions and practices of those undertaking the procedures.With ethical approval, a survey was designed for online delivery and was sent to every dental practitioner in the UK with a publicly available email address or social media contact. The opening page provided the project information sheet and proceeding to complete and submit the questionnaire was considered consent to participate. The online survey was circulated to 900 identified addresses and a total of 145 responses were received. Responses were collated in Microsoft® Excel™ and analyzed using IBM® SPSS™ plus thematic analysis of free text responses. Results: There were 42% of participants (n=61) who discouraged AB prophylactic use in M3 extractions in people with no systemic conditions and who also preferred postoperative AB use when required. Where, 57.9% of respondents (n=84) supported the short-term use of ABs (5-7 days) for M3 extraction and 53% (n=77) in DIP placement in patients with no relevant medical history. As an ad hoc finding, dentists reported on the negative impact of heavy smoking and oral parafunctional behavior on DIP success. Conclusion: The use of antibiotics and broad spectrum antibiotics remains higher than current guidelines would recommend. Further research is required to clarify the specific risks arising from underlying medical conditions to further clarify where prophylaxis is required.