抗生素预防可有效减少初学者进行种植牙手术后的早期失败率

Q3 Dentistry
Omer Waleed Majid
{"title":"抗生素预防可有效减少初学者进行种植牙手术后的早期失败率","authors":"Omer Waleed Majid","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01011-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. To assess the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative recovery and implant short-term survival in clinically healthy patients who underwent placement of 2–4 dental implants by inexperienced operators. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki declaration, and followed the CONSORT protocol for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Signed consent forms were provided by all patients. Included were healthy individuals aged over 18 years, with sufficient and fully healed alveolar ridge (undergone extraction at least 3 months prior), requiring placement of 2–4 dental implants, and were classified as ASA I or II. Exclusion criteria were: systemic diseases, hypersensitivity to penicillin, pregnancy or lactation, smoking, recent antibiotic usage, and history of periodontitis. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the antibiotic group received 1 g of amoxicillin one hour before surgery, while the placebo group was given starch-filled capsules that looked identical to the antibiotic. All implants were installed through 2-stage procedures by students of a specialization course in implant surgery, employing a standardized procedure and armamentarium. Each patient was evaluated preoperatively, and at 2 days and 7 days postoperatively, for the following parameters: mouth opening, experienced pain (using a visual analog scale), and signs of infection (fistula, wound ulceration, tissue necrosis, flap dehiscence, and purulent exudates). Implant survival was monitored for up to 90 days after implant surgery. A total of 90 patients (224 implants) were included: 43 patients (108 implants) in the antibiotic group, and 47 patients (116 implants) in the placebo group. Overall, there were 58 women and 32 men, aged from 23 to 70 years old. In terms of mouth opening, pain, and infection parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the time points evaluated. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference regarding antibiotic usage and implant loss at the patient level (p = 0.06). However, at the implant level, significantly higher implant loss rate was noted in the placebo group (14.9%) compared to the antibiotic group (2.3%) [p < 0.05]. Prophylactic antibiotic administration effectively reduced the occurrence of implant loss after implant surgery performed by inexperienced practitioners.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 4","pages":"174-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01011-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibiotic prophylaxis may effectively reduce early failures after beginner-conducted dental implant surgery\",\"authors\":\"Omer Waleed Majid\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01011-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. To assess the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative recovery and implant short-term survival in clinically healthy patients who underwent placement of 2–4 dental implants by inexperienced operators. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki declaration, and followed the CONSORT protocol for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Signed consent forms were provided by all patients. Included were healthy individuals aged over 18 years, with sufficient and fully healed alveolar ridge (undergone extraction at least 3 months prior), requiring placement of 2–4 dental implants, and were classified as ASA I or II. Exclusion criteria were: systemic diseases, hypersensitivity to penicillin, pregnancy or lactation, smoking, recent antibiotic usage, and history of periodontitis. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the antibiotic group received 1 g of amoxicillin one hour before surgery, while the placebo group was given starch-filled capsules that looked identical to the antibiotic. All implants were installed through 2-stage procedures by students of a specialization course in implant surgery, employing a standardized procedure and armamentarium. Each patient was evaluated preoperatively, and at 2 days and 7 days postoperatively, for the following parameters: mouth opening, experienced pain (using a visual analog scale), and signs of infection (fistula, wound ulceration, tissue necrosis, flap dehiscence, and purulent exudates). Implant survival was monitored for up to 90 days after implant surgery. A total of 90 patients (224 implants) were included: 43 patients (108 implants) in the antibiotic group, and 47 patients (116 implants) in the placebo group. Overall, there were 58 women and 32 men, aged from 23 to 70 years old. In terms of mouth opening, pain, and infection parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the time points evaluated. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference regarding antibiotic usage and implant loss at the patient level (p = 0.06). However, at the implant level, significantly higher implant loss rate was noted in the placebo group (14.9%) compared to the antibiotic group (2.3%) [p < 0.05]. Prophylactic antibiotic administration effectively reduced the occurrence of implant loss after implant surgery performed by inexperienced practitioners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\"25 4\",\"pages\":\"174-175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01011-9.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01011-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01011-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床试验。目的评估抗生素预防对临床健康、由缺乏经验的操作者植入 2-4 个牙科种植体的患者术后恢复和种植体短期存活率的影响。方法该研究遵守赫尔辛基宣言的伦理准则,并遵循随机对照试验 (RCT) 的 CONSORT 协议。所有患者均提供了签名同意书。研究对象包括年龄在18岁以上、牙槽嵴充分且完全愈合(至少在3个月前进行过拔牙)、需要植入2-4颗种植体、ASA分类为I级或II级的健康人。排除标准包括:全身性疾病、对青霉素过敏、怀孕或哺乳期、吸烟、近期使用过抗生素以及有牙周炎病史。患者被随机分为两组:抗生素组在手术前一小时服用1克阿莫西林,安慰剂组服用与抗生素相同的淀粉填充胶囊。所有的种植体都是由种植手术专业课程的学生采用标准化的程序和设备分两步安装的。每位患者在术前、术后 2 天和 7 天均接受了以下评估:张口情况、疼痛感(使用视觉模拟量表)和感染迹象(瘘管、伤口溃疡、组织坏死、皮瓣开裂和化脓性渗出物)。对植入手术后 90 天内的植入物存活情况进行了监测:抗生素组有 43 名患者(108 个种植体),安慰剂组有 47 名患者(116 个种植体)。其中,女性 58 人,男性 32 人,年龄从 23 岁到 70 岁不等。就张口、疼痛和感染参数而言,在任何一个评估时间点,两组之间都没有发现明显的统计学差异。同样,在抗生素使用和种植体脱落方面,患者之间也没有明显的统计学差异(P = 0.06)。结论预防性抗生素用药可有效减少由经验不足的医生进行种植手术后种植体脱落的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Antibiotic prophylaxis may effectively reduce early failures after beginner-conducted dental implant surgery
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. To assess the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative recovery and implant short-term survival in clinically healthy patients who underwent placement of 2–4 dental implants by inexperienced operators. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki declaration, and followed the CONSORT protocol for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Signed consent forms were provided by all patients. Included were healthy individuals aged over 18 years, with sufficient and fully healed alveolar ridge (undergone extraction at least 3 months prior), requiring placement of 2–4 dental implants, and were classified as ASA I or II. Exclusion criteria were: systemic diseases, hypersensitivity to penicillin, pregnancy or lactation, smoking, recent antibiotic usage, and history of periodontitis. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the antibiotic group received 1 g of amoxicillin one hour before surgery, while the placebo group was given starch-filled capsules that looked identical to the antibiotic. All implants were installed through 2-stage procedures by students of a specialization course in implant surgery, employing a standardized procedure and armamentarium. Each patient was evaluated preoperatively, and at 2 days and 7 days postoperatively, for the following parameters: mouth opening, experienced pain (using a visual analog scale), and signs of infection (fistula, wound ulceration, tissue necrosis, flap dehiscence, and purulent exudates). Implant survival was monitored for up to 90 days after implant surgery. A total of 90 patients (224 implants) were included: 43 patients (108 implants) in the antibiotic group, and 47 patients (116 implants) in the placebo group. Overall, there were 58 women and 32 men, aged from 23 to 70 years old. In terms of mouth opening, pain, and infection parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the time points evaluated. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference regarding antibiotic usage and implant loss at the patient level (p = 0.06). However, at the implant level, significantly higher implant loss rate was noted in the placebo group (14.9%) compared to the antibiotic group (2.3%) [p < 0.05]. Prophylactic antibiotic administration effectively reduced the occurrence of implant loss after implant surgery performed by inexperienced practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信