ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2024
Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral implant surgery in Germany: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Marginal Bone Loss Around Bone-Level Fully Guided Implants With Direct Implant Connection Versus Intermediate Abutment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Global prevalence and guideline adherence of antibiotic prescribing in dental implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProphylactic antibiotics are used in dental implants to reduce infection risk and implant failure, especially benefiting patients with risk factors. However, evidence suggests that using clindamycin or extending antibiotics postoperatively has an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio.
methodsThis national cross-sectional study analyzed antibiotic prophylaxis during implant insertion across Germany. Dentists from the German Society for Oral Implantology (DGOI) provided demographic information and data on the next 10 consecutive implant patients, including age, sex, risk factors, type of implantation, and antibiotic details.
results103 dentists participated, providing data on 1040 patients. Most dentists were male and aged 30-64. Patients were evenly split between genders, with an average age of 51 years. Antibiotics were administered in 87.6% of all cases, more frequently for patients undergoing bone augmentation (OR 7.01, p < 0.0001), immediate (OR 3.11, p = 0.002) or delayed (OR 5.30, p < 0.0001) implant insertion, and those with cardiovascular disease (OR 3.24, p = 0.009). 74.8% of implantologists tended to use antibiotic prophylaxis routinely, while the remaining implantologists decided on a case-by-case basis. Implantologists primarily used aminopenicillins for 63.8% of prescriptions and clindamycin for the remaining 35.6%. Additionally, 78.8% of patients with prophylaxis received postoperative, multi-day treatments.
conclusionsThe study reveals extensive antibiotic use for perioperative prophylaxis in implant surgery, often not justified by current recommendations, particularly concerning the choice of antibiotic (e.g., clindamycin) and duration (e.g., postoperative use). Specialized clinical guidelines and targeted training for dentists on antibiotic prophylaxis are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.