Mehrabanian Mojtaba, Mivehchi Hassan, Dorri Mojtaba
General Dental Practitioners, Dingwall, Scotland.
Consultant in Restorative Dentistry (Prosthodontics, Endodontics, Periodontology and Implantology), Bristol Dental Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2024 Dec;25(4):206-207. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01086-4. Epub 2024 Nov 11.
A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases (PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to October 1st, 2023. Manual screening of reference lists was performed, alongside searches in clinical trial registries to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotics or placebo in systemically healthy individuals undergoing dental implant surgery were included. Studies with a high risk of bias, non-randomized studies, and those without a placebo or control group were excluded. Studies focusing on medically compromised patients or other implant techniques (such as mini-implants or immediate placement in sites with apical pathology) were also excluded.
Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved through discussion among all review authors. The risk of bias for each included randomized controlled trial (RCT) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB-2). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was checked with both the I² statistic and Q test.
A total of 1267 studies were initially identified, with seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria, comprising data from 1,859 participants and 3014 implants. Four studies were high quality, and three were of moderate quality. Meta-analyses of these studies showed no statistically significant association between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and a reduction in early dental implant failure (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30-1.47). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one implant failure was 143, indicating a limited effect of antibiotics in preventing early implant failure.
The study concluded that routine antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the risk of early implant failure in medically fit patients. Given the very limited benefit and the concern of increasing antibiotic resistance, routine use of antibiotics in dental implant surgery should be avoided.
截至2023年10月1日,在多个数据库(通过MEDLINE检索的PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science)中进行了系统检索。对参考文献列表进行了人工筛选,并在临床试验注册库中进行检索,以确保全面覆盖。
仅纳入在全身健康的接受牙种植手术的个体中,比较抗生素预防与不使用抗生素或安慰剂的随机对照试验(RCT)。排除有高偏倚风险的研究、非随机研究以及没有安慰剂或对照组的研究。聚焦于医学上有缺陷的患者或其他种植技术(如微型种植体或在有根尖病变部位即刻种植)的研究也被排除。
由两名作者独立进行数据提取,分歧通过所有综述作者讨论解决。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB - 2)评估每个纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)的偏倚风险。使用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)框架评估证据质量。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,并用I²统计量和Q检验检查异质性。
最初共识别出1267项研究,最终有7项随机对照试验(RCT)符合纳入标准,包含来自1859名参与者和3014颗种植体的数据。4项研究质量高,3项质量中等。对这些研究的荟萃分析表明,使用抗生素预防与早期牙种植失败减少之间无统计学显著关联(风险比:0.66,95%置信区间:0.30 - 1.47)。预防一例种植失败所需治疗人数(NNT)为143,表明抗生素在预防早期种植失败方面效果有限。
该研究得出结论,在身体状况良好的患者中,常规抗生素预防并不能显著降低早期种植失败风险。鉴于益处非常有限且对抗生素耐药性增加的担忧,应避免在牙种植手术中常规使用抗生素。