ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024
Antibiotic prophylaxis may effectively reduce early failures after beginner-conducted dental implant surgery.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breakthroughs of ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction in treating myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: from angiogenesis regulation to precise inflammation suppression.Drug delivery · 2025Review
- Influence of Amoxicillin Dosage and Time of Administration on Postoperative Complications After Impacted Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Dental Implant Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
objectiveTo assess the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative recovery and implant short-term survival in clinically healthy patients who underwent placement of 2-4 dental implants by inexperienced operators.
methodsThe study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki declaration, and followed the CONSORT protocol for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Signed consent forms were provided by all patients. Included were healthy individuals aged over 18 years, with sufficient and fully healed alveolar ridge (undergone extraction at least 3 months prior), requiring placement of 2-4 dental implants, and were classified as ASA I or II. Exclusion criteria were: systemic diseases, hypersensitivity to penicillin, pregnancy or lactation, smoking, recent antibiotic usage, and history of periodontitis. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the antibiotic group received 1 g of amoxicillin one hour before surgery, while the placebo group was given starch-filled capsules that looked identical to the antibiotic. All implants were installed through 2-stage procedures by students of a specialization course in implant surgery, employing a standardized procedure and armamentarium. Each patient was evaluated preoperatively, and at 2 days and 7 days postoperatively, for the following parameters: mouth opening, experienced pain (using a visual analog scale), and signs of infection (fistula, wound ulceration, tissue necrosis, flap dehiscence, and purulent exudates). Implant survival was monitored for up to 90 days after implant surgery.
resultsA total of 90 patients (224 implants) were included: 43 patients (108 implants) in the antibiotic group, and 47 patients (116 implants) in the placebo group. Overall, there were 58 women and 32 men, aged from 23 to 70 years old. In terms of mouth opening, pain, and infection parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the time points evaluated. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference regarding antibiotic usage and implant loss at the patient level (p = 0.06). However, at the implant level, significantly higher implant loss rate was noted in the placebo group (14.9%) compared to the antibiotic group (2.3%) [p < 0.05].
conclusionProphylactic antibiotic administration effectively reduced the occurrence of implant loss after implant surgery performed by inexperienced practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38720022What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.