Are Antidepressant Medications Associated with Increased Dental Implant Failure?

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. e35-e36
Author(s):  
B.R. Carr ◽  
J.A. Gulko ◽  
N.C. Kolar ◽  
R. Finn
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu

The purpose of this non-random retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotic on early outcomes including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding and cyanosis in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 males, 30 females) whose dental implant placement were completed, included to the study. Patients used prophylactic antibiotics were defined as the experimental group and those who did not, were defined as the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 h preoperatively and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days postoperatively while the control group had received no prophylactic antibiotic therapy perioperatively. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 ( p >0.05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 compared to day 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups ( p =0.001 and p <0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized control clinical studies with higher numbers of patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.


2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rami Alissa ◽  
Richard J. Oliver

Dental implant treatment is an important therapeutic modality with documented long-term success for replacement of missing teeth. However, dental implants can be susceptible to disease conditions or healing complications that may lead to implant loss. This case-control study identified several risk indicators associated with failure such as smoking and alcohol consumption. The use of postoperative antibiotics or wide-diameter implants may significantly reduce implant failure. Knowledge of patient-related risk factors may assist the clinician in proper case selection and treatment planning.


2002 ◽  
Vol 81 (8) ◽  
pp. 572-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.K. Chuang ◽  
L.J. Wei ◽  
C.W. Douglass ◽  
T.B. Dodson

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Nourah ◽  
Salwa Aldahlawi ◽  
Sebastiano Andreana

Introduction: Optimal glycemic control is crucial to dental implant long-term functional and esthetic success. Despite HbA1c levels of 7% or lower used as an indicator for good glycemic control, however, this level may not be attainable for all diabetic patients. Most dentists do not consider patients with poor glycemic control candidates for implant therapy due to higher implant failure, infection or other complications. Aim: This review challenges the concept of one size fits all and aims to critically appraise the evidence for the success or failure rate of dental implants and peri-implant health outcomes in patients with less-than-optimal glycemic control. Discussion: Evidence suggests that estimating glycemic control from HbA1c measurement alone is misleading. Moreover, elevated preoperative HbA1c was not associated with increased mortality and morbidity after major surgical procedures. Literature for the survival or success of implants in diabetic patients is inconsistent due to a lack of standardized reporting of clinical data collection and outcomes. While a number of studies report that implant treatment in patients with well-controlled diabetes has a similar success rate to healthy individuals, other studies suggest that the quality of glycemic control in diabetic patients does not make a difference in the implant failure rate or marginal bone loss. This discrepancy could indicate that risk factors other than hyperglycemia may contribute to the survival of implants in diabetic patients. Conclusion: In the era of personalized medicine, the clinician should utilize individualized information and analyze all risk factors to provide the patient with evidence-based treatment options.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. e0216428 ◽  
Author(s):  
László Márk Czumbel ◽  
Beáta Kerémi ◽  
Noémi Gede ◽  
Alexandra Mikó ◽  
Barbara Tóth ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 150 (6) ◽  
pp. e61-e91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalie S. Braun ◽  
Leandro Chambrone ◽  
Ismael Khouly

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document