SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Use of antibiotics for prevention and treatment of sinus lift infections: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Clinical, radiographic and histomorphometric assessment of the effects of melatonin gel mixed with a xenograft in augmentation of the maxillary sinus: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Azithromycin in Dentistry: From Systemic Antibiotic to a Candidate for Local Therapeutic Delivery.Pharmaceutics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic use in sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedures remains controversial due to heterogeneous protocols and inconsistent clinical outcomes.
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness of systemic antibiotic regimens for the prevention and management of infections associated with SFE procedures, based on a synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
methodsThe study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD420251061400). Seven systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2008–2024) were included. Methodological quality was appraised using AMSTAR-2, overlap among primary studies was evaluated with the GROOVE tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed through the GRADE approach. A descriptive synthesis was performed, as methodological heterogeneity and overlap precluded meta-analytic pooling.
resultsInfection rates following SFE ranged from 0.3% to 11.6%, with implant survival consistently above 90% regardless of antibiotic regimen. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly prescribed (Amoxicillin or Amoxicillin/Clavulanate, 7–10 days), although no standardized protocol was identified. Reviews rated as high or moderate quality provided limited yet consistent evidence suggesting that antibiotics may reduce infection risk in high-risk situations (e.g., membrane perforation, extensive lateral approach, or systemic comorbidities). The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis may be beneficial only in selected high-risk scenarios, whereas routine use appears unnecessary in uncomplicated SFE. Given the low certainty and heterogeneity of existing studies, recommendations should be interpreted cautiously, and future well-designed randomized trials are needed to define standardized antibiotic and non-antibiotic strategies for infection prevention.
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.