ArticleBMC oral health2026
Early dental implant outcomes in patients with reported penicillin allergy: a retrospective study on clindamycin safety.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of study is to compare early failure rate in patients with self-reported penicillin allergy (SRPA) who take clindamycin after implant surgery with non-allergic patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who had dental implant surgery. The predictor variable was the type of antibiotics. SRPA patients who received clindamycin were obtained from database. The patients in non-allergic group were randomly selected to be identical to allergic patients in terms of age, gender, diabetes, and surface features of implant. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used analysis early implant failure rate between the two groups implant level. The Pearson chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with Hosmer and Lemeshow Test.
resultsThe study completed with 406 patients. The mean age was 49.64 ± 13.72 years. 104 were male and 302 were female. The patients in both groups were the same in terms of age, gender, and implant surface characteristics. The failure rate of the implant 10(4.93%) in clindamycin group and 4(1.97%) at patient level. The failure rate of the implant 17(1.56%) in amoxicillin group and 9(0.75%) at implant level. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of failure rate at patient (p = 0.172) and implant level (p = 0.106). The failure rate in male patients was 4.11 time higher than female patients (p = 0.011).
conclusionThe results showed that clindamycin use in SRPA patients did not significantly increase the implant failure with the limitations of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is first study compared early implant failure rate in patients with who received clindamycin after implant surgery with non-allergic patients with similar age, gender, health status.
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.