RESUMO
AIM: To study the clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients (113 implants) with peri-implantitis were randomized into three groups (A, amoxicillin and metronidazole; B, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole; or C, placebo). Treatment included resective surgery and implant surface decontamination with adjunctive antibiotics or placebo. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Secondary outcomes were treatment success (defined as PPD ≤ 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP] ≤ 1site, absence of suppuration on probing [SOP] and absence of progressive bone loss of >0.5 mm), changes in BOP/SOP, mucosal recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), bacterial levels and adverse events. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 12 months. The impact of potential prognostic indicators on treatment success was evaluated using multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (104 implants) completed the study. All groups showed clinical and radiological improvements over time. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups for MBL stability (A = 97%, B = 89%, C = 76%), treatment success (A = 68%, B = 66%, C = 28%) and bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia, favouring antibiotics compared to placebo. Multiple regression identified antibiotic use as potential prognostic indicator for treatment success. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most reported adverse events in the antibiotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive systemic antibiotics resulted in additional improvements in MBL stability. However, the potential clinical benefits of antibiotics need to be carefully balanced against the risk of adverse events and possible antibiotic resistance.
Assuntos
Amoxicilina , Antibacterianos , Metronidazol , Peri-Implantite , Humanos , Peri-Implantite/tratamento farmacológico , Peri-Implantite/microbiologia , Peri-Implantite/cirurgia , Feminino , Masculino , Metronidazol/uso terapêutico , Metronidazol/administração & dosagem , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Amoxicilina/uso terapêutico , Amoxicilina/administração & dosagem , Resultado do Tratamento , Idoso , Perda do Osso Alveolar/cirurgia , Perda do Osso Alveolar/tratamento farmacológico , Bolsa Periodontal/cirurgia , Bolsa Periodontal/tratamento farmacológico , Bolsa Periodontal/microbiologia , Placebos , Seguimentos , Perda da Inserção Periodontal/cirurgia , Perda da Inserção Periodontal/tratamento farmacológico , Retração Gengival/cirurgia , Retração Gengival/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Carga Bacteriana/efeitos dos fármacosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The question of whether antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered routinely for dental implant surgery is unresolved. Despite the lack of conclusive supportive evidence, antibiotics are often administered to reduce the risk of infection, which could lead to early implant failure. Increasing antibiotic resistance is a major concern and it is therefore important to reduce the overall use of antibiotics, including in dentistry. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in preventing early implant failure, in overall healthy patients undergoing dental implant surgery. METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to October 1st, 2023, to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs). All RCTs comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotics/placebo in overall healthy patients receiving dental implants were included. The primary outcome was patients with early implant failure. Risk of bias was assessed, data were extracted, a meta-analysis was done, and GRADE certainty-of-evidence ratings were determined. The risk ratio (RR), the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 1086 abstracts were screened, and 17 articles were reviewed in full text. Seven RCTs with moderate or low risk of bias and with a total of 1859 patients and 3014 implants were included in the meta-analysis. With reference to early implant failure at patient level, the meta-analysis failed to disclose any statistically significant difference (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30-1.47) between antibiotic prophylaxis and a placebo. The risk difference was -0.007 (95% CI: -0.035-0.020) leading to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 143. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery does not seem to have any substantial effect on early implant failure ( ). The results do not support routine antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery.