Search

Background: The growing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial medicines is a global issue and a direct threat to human health. Despite this, antibiotic prophylaxis is often still routinely used in dental implant surgery to prevent bacterial infection and early implant failure, despite unclear benefits. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to formulate clear clinical guidelines and therefore there is a need for well‐designed, large‐scale randomized controlled trials to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis. Purpose: To compare the effect of a presurgical antibiotic regimen with an identical placebo regimen in healthy or relatively healthy patients receiving dental implants. Materials and Methods: The 474 patients participating in the study were recruited from seven clinics in southern Sweden. We randomized the patients into a test and a placebo group; the study was conducted double‐blinded. Preoperatively, the test group received 2 g of amoxicillin and the control group, identical placebo tablets. The primary outcome was implant failure; secondary outcomes were postoperative infections and adverse events. Patients were evaluated at two follow‐ups: at 7–14 days and at 3–6 months. Results: Postoperative evaluations of the antibiotic (n = 238) and the placebo (n = 235) groups noted implant failures (antibiotic group: six patients, 2.5% and placebo group: seven patients, 3.0%) and postoperative infections (antibiotic group: two patients, 0.8% and placebo group: five patients, 2.1%). No patient reported any adverse events. Between‐group differences in implant failures and postoperative infections were nonsignificant. Conclusion: Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with implant placement is likely of small benefit and should thus be avoided in most cases, especially given the unabated growth in antibiotic‐resistant bacteria. Clinical trial registration number: NCT03412305. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screw‐retained fixed partial dentures (FPD) have shown a lower incidence of biologic complications and an easier retrievability compared with cemented FPD. Purpose: To compare the marginal bone loss at conical connection implant restored with a screw retained cobalt‐chrome FPD in an implant‐level (IL) or an abutment‐level (AL) setup. Materials and Methods: Patients with at least two adjacent missing teeth were randomly allocated to be restored with IL or AL FPD. Periapical radiographs and clinical examination were taken at implant placement, prosthetic connection, 6 and 12 months to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL), and soft tissue conditions. Complications were used to calculate prognostic indexes. Results: Fifty patients were treated with 50 FPD supported by 119 implants. The difference of MBL between the IL and AL groups was statistically significant (P = 0.003). At 1 year, MBL was 0.086 ± 0.313 mm and 0.005 ± 0.222 mm in the IL and AL groups, respectively. The presence of BoP increased with time in IL, whereas it decreased in AL group (P < 0.001). A minor complication was encounted in one FPD. Conclusions: A low grade of MBL was present after 1 year. IL showed greater amount of MBL and soft tissue inflammation indexes than AL. In FPD, AL may be a safer procedure than IL setup in order to preserve a healthy periimplant tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of a submerged implant system in a nonsubmerged surgical procedure has been reported to have promising results. At the time this study was initiated, no prospective, comparative studies with randomization between submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques had been published. Purpose: To evaluate the submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques when treating mandibular edentulism using a submerged implant system, with regard to implant survival and complications. Materials and Methods: A total of 77 patients were included and treated at nine clinics in Sweden and Norway. In total, 404 Brånemark System implants (standard and MkII implants) were inserted in the edentulous mandible; 198 implants according to the nonsubmerged protocol and 206 implants according to the traditional submerged procedure. The follow-up period was up to 36 months after prosthesis insertion. Results: In the nonsubmerged group, 17 implants out of 198 implants (8.6%) were lost and in the submerged group, 5 out of 206 implants (2.4%) were lost. All implant failures occurred before the delivery of the final prosthesis. No major complications were reported during the implant surgery. However, at the clinical check-up postoperatively and at the abutment connection surgery, 6 patients in the nonsubmerged group complained of pain at the implant sites, whereas there were no complaints of pain in the submerged group. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that a turned Brånemark implant designed for a submerged implant placement procedure can be used in a nonsubmerged procedure and may be as predictable as the conventional submerged approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of a specially designed implant to be anchored in the zygomatic body has been proposed as an alternative to bone grafting in the prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla. However, few studies have evaluated the long-term stability and soft tissue conditions of zygomatic implants. Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical performance of zygomatic implants when used for prosthetic reconstruction of atrophic maxillae. Materials and Methods: Sixteen patients consecutively treated with 31 zygomatic implants and 74 additional dental implants from 1998 to 2002 were retrospectively evaluated and prospectively followed using a standardized clinical and radiographic study design. Data were collected from the time of implant treatment until the last follow-up. Results: The follow-up period ranged from 9 to 69 months from the day of implant treatment, with a mean of 46.4 months (3 years, 10 months). Three (9.7%) of the 31 zygomatic implants were surgically removed because of recurrent sinusitis. Three (4.1%) of the 71 additional dental implants failed to integrate. Poor oral hygiene and gingivitis were seen at most zygomatic implant sites (10/16). Local infections were observed in 9 of 16 patients. Sinusitis occurred in 6 patients. All patients (16/16) eventually received fixed bridges, which were stable throughout the observation period. Conclusions: The results showed an acceptable outcome with regard to implant and prosthetic survival rates. However, postoperative complications not related to implant and prosthesis stability were frequent. Further investigations of the long-term performance of zygomatic implants and with a focus on soft tissue and maxillary sinus health are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]