Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Medicina (Kaunas). 2018 Dec 1;54(6). pii: E95. doi: 10.3390/medicina54060095.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Dental Implants and Extraction Procedures.

Author information

1
School of Pharmacy, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. a.s.gill2@wlv.ac.uk.
2
School of Pharmacy, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. Hana.Morrissey@wlv.ac.uk.
3
School of Pharmacy, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. A.Rahman5@wlv.ac.uk.

Abstract

Background and objectives: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results: Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising n = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure (p = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications (p = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. Conclusions: There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.

KEYWORDS:

antibiotic prophylaxis; dental extraction; dental implants; microbial drug resistance

PMID:
30513764
PMCID:
PMC6306745
DOI:
10.3390/medicina54060095
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center