Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35996129›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of dental implant placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Khrystyna Zhurakivska, Lucio Lo Russo, Lorenzo Lo Muzio, Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Luigi Laino, Claudia Arena, Nicola Cirillo, Giuseppe Troiano

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Liver Abscess Caused byJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Khrystyna ZhurakivskaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Lucio Lo RussoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Lorenzo Lo MuzioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Vito Carlo Alberto CaponioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Luigi LainoDepartment of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences Naples University, Naples, Italy.
Claudia ArenaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Nicola CirilloMelbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Giuseppe TroianoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy. giuseppe.troiano@unifg.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5647-4414

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic prophylaxis during implant placement may improve implant short term survival. Nevertheless, use of antibiotics carries risks of adverse effects and antibiotic resistance. The aim of the present study is to compare the use of antibiotics in dental implant procedures in terms of costs and effectiveness.

methodsA decision-tree model was developed using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software. Two strategies were compared: Antibiotics and No antibiotics in implant placement procedures. The costs were calculated considering direct costs for implant placement, antibiotic costs, and costs for implant replacement in case of failure. Effectiveness was defined in terms of General Oral Health Assessment Index. Outcomes were evaluated as Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis were performed for the most influential variables to test parameter uncertainty. Patient and healthcare perspectives were considered.

resultsAntibiotic prophylaxis resulted to be cost-effective compared to no use of antibiotics (ICER = 14,692,64 and ICER = 3841,18, respectively for patient's and healthcare perspective). The cost of antibiotics, cost of implant replacement in case of failure and probability of adverse effects significantly influenced the results.

conclusionsFrom an individual patient perspective, antibiotic strategy can be considered cost-effective, even when the cost of antibiotic therapy increases. We can conclude that the administration of antibiotics in association with implant placement is recommended in clinical practice, as it increases the success rate and makes the treatment more effective. However, attention should be placed when healthcare perspective is considered, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance that may impact public health and associated costs.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisDental ImplantsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsDental ImplantsAntibiotic prophylaxisAntibioticsCost-effectivenessDental implantImplants

Identifiers

PMID35996129
PMCPMC9396847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.