scholarly journals Antibiotic prescribing habits of the clinicians dealing with dental implant surgery in Turkey: a questionnaire study

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gül Merve Yalcin-Ülker ◽  
Merve Cakir ◽  
Deniz Gökce Meral
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Electronic Mail ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Prescribing Habits ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Preoperative Antibiotics

Abstract Purpose Although various prophylactic and/or postoperative systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimize failure after dental implant placement and postoperative infection, the role of antibiotics in implant dentistry is still controversial. The purposes of this questionnaire study were to determine the current antibiotic prescribing habits of clinicians in conjunction with dental implant placement and to understand whether any consensus has been reached among implant surgery performing clinicians. Methods An electronic questionnaire was sent by electronic mail to all members of the Turkish Dental Society. The questions were related to whether antibiotics were routinely prescribed either pre- or/and postoperatively during routine dental implant placement. The respondents were also asked to specify their workplace and education. The results were analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive and chi-square analyses were used to compare categorical data; Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the quantitative data by category. Results A total of 429 members responded to the questionnaire. The clinicians having more experience had a greater tendency to prescribe preoperative antibiotics (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the postoperative antibiotic prescription choice of the clinician according to the clinicians’ experience (p > 0.05). A total of 175 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe preoperative antibiotics when there was systemic comorbidity; 99 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe antibiotics before every implant surgery. The aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics by the clinicians. A total of 38.58% of the respondents (n = 130) who were prescribing preoperative antibiotics, 2000 mg aminopenicillin was given 1 h before the surgical procedure. Dentists and solo private practitioners were prescribing more preoperative antibiotics (p < 0,05). Conclusions There was no consensus among clinicians regarding the use of antibiotics in association with routine dental implant placement. Aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics for both pre- and postoperatively. Furthermore, most of the antibiotic regimens being used are not in accordance with the current published data.

Is perioperative antibiotic necessary in straightforward implant placement procedures?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Experimental Group

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 &gt;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 &lt;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.

scholarly journals Methods Used to Assess the 3D Accuracy of Dental Implant Positions in Computer-Guided Implant Placement: A Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se-Wook Pyo ◽  
Young-Jun Lim ◽  
Ki-Tae Koo ◽  
Jungwon Lee
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Positive Feedback ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ct Data ◽  
Computed Topography

The purpose of this review is to examine various assessment methods in order to compare the accuracy between the virtually planned and clinically achieved implant positions. In this review, comparison methods using pre- and post-operative computed topography (CT) data and digital impressions for definitive prosthesis will be described. The method for the displacement and strain for quantification of the error will also be explored. The difference between the planned and the actual implant placement position in guided implant surgery is expressed as an error. Assessing the accuracy of implant-guided surgery can play an important role as positive feedback in order to reduce errors. All of the assessment methods have their own inevitable errors and require careful interpretation in evaluation.

scholarly journals Dental implants and risk of bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Basim E. S. Dawoud ◽  
Samuel Kent ◽  
Oliver Tabbenor ◽  
Pynadath George ◽  
Jagtar Dhanda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Dental Implant Surgery ◽  
Anticoagulated Patients

Abstract Background Dental implant placement is safe and predictable, yet optimal management of anticoagulated patients remains controversial. Whilst cessation of anticoagulation pre-operatively should decrease risks of bleeding, risk of thrombosis increases. We aim to define risk of bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulation who are undergoing dental implant placement, in order to establish best management. Methods This systematic review is registered with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) PROSPERO database (Registration No: CRD42021233929). We performed a systematic review as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Studies were identified using an agreed search strategy within the OVID Gateway (this included Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaborative). Studies assessing bleeding complications in patients who were undergoing dental implant placement were selected. The primary outcome was bleeding events in anticoagulated patients undergoing dental implant placement. Secondary outcomes included any complication requiring further intervention. Results We identified 182 studies through screening, and after review of titles and abstracts reduced this to 8 studies. In these studies, 1467 participants received at least 2366 implants. Studies were analysed for quality using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Four studies were retrospective case reviews, and four were prospective reviews, three of which also blinded the operator to anticoagulation status. There was significant heterogeneity between the included studies. Meta-analysis showed an increased risk of bleeding (RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.25-4.24 p = 0.37 I = 7%) when implants were placed in the presence of anticoagulation however these were not clinically significant haemorrhagic events. Conclusion The continuation of anticoagulants peri-operatively during dental implant surgery does increase the risk of clinically non-significant peri- and post-operative bleeding. Dental implant surgery encompasses a broad spectrum of procedures ranging from minor to more invasive surgery with simple local haemostatic measures mitigating the risk of bleeding. The decision to discontinue anticoagulants prior to dental implant surgery must consider patient and surgical factors with the clinician undertaking a risk-balance assessment.

scholarly journals A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyo Joon Kim ◽  
Hee Jin Kim ◽  
Seong Yong Moon
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Preoperative Plan ◽  
One Year ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Apical Area

The aim of this study is to compare the implant placement deviations and evaluate the 1-year post-implant placement bone loss of pilot and fully guided implant placement protocols. In the first method, the pilot drill is used for guide surgery, and the following procedure is a method for performing implant surgery in a non-guided protocol. The second method is to perform fully guided surgery. A total of 74 implants in 20 patients were included. Postoperative CT scans were used to compare the implant placement deviations with the preoperative plan. In addition, bone loss was compared one year after surgery. In shoulder area, the implant deviations from the planned positions for dx(mesio-distal), dy(bucco-lingual), dz(vertical) dimensions, mean deviations with pilot-guided protocol (n = 31) were 0.50 ± 0.42 mm, 0.61 ± 0.55 mm, 0.87 ± 0.71 mm, and 1.33 ± 0.75 mm, respectively. The corresponding deviations for fully guided protocol (n = 41) were 0.50 ± 0.52 mm, 0.29 ± 0.27 mm, 0.56 ± 0.51 mm, and 0.96 ± 0.57 mm. In apical area, the corresponding deviations for pilot-guided protocol were 0.75 ± 0.72 mm, 0.61 ± 0.46 mm, 0.98 ± 0.76 mm, and 1.54 ± 0.87 mm. Deviations for fully guided protocol were 0.91 ± 0.90 mm, 0.44 ± 0.39 mm, 0.54 ± 0.51 mm, and 1.38 ± 0.76 mm, respectively. Angular deviations were 3.33 ± 3.23° with pilot-guided protocol and 3.90 ± 1.85° with fully guided protocol. The average bone loss after 1 year was 0.50 + 0.29 mm and 0.50 ± 0.24 mm, respectively. In the shoulder area, dy(bucco-lingual) of horizontal deviations, vertical deviations, and mean value of the deviations showed a statistically significant difference between fully guided and pilot-guided (p = 0.005, p = 0.033, and p = 0.023, respectively). In the apical area, vertical deviations showed a statistically significant difference. However, the mean value of the deviations did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.347). There was no statistically significant difference in angular deviations (p = 0.59).

scholarly journals Preventive Antibiotic Prescribing Habits among Professionals Dedicated to Oral Implantology: An Observational Study

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Angel Orión Salgado-Peralvo ◽  
Naresh Kewalramani ◽  
Juan Francisco Peña-Cardelles ◽  
María Victoria Mateos-Moreno ◽  
Loreto Monsalve-Guil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prescribing Habits ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve Prostheses ◽  
Oral Implantology

The prescription of preventive antibiotics (PA) in oral implantology is a controversial issue. The study aimed to determine the prescribing habits of PA in professionals dedicated to oral implantology in various treatments in healthy and at-risk patients. This is a cross-sectional observational study based on the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. An electronic survey consisting of 4 blocks of questions was sent to members of the Spanish Society of Implants. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. A total of 303 participants (20.8%) responded to the questionnaire. One percent never prescribed PA, 55.4% prescribed them always, and 43.6% prescribed them sometimes. Ninety-six percent administered them preoperatively, while 92.4% administered them postoperatively. The most commonly used antibiotic is amoxicillin followed by amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (875/125 mg). Clindamycin is the most commonly administered antibiotic in patients with allergies. Professionals dedicated to oral implantology frequently prescribe PA in both healthy and at-risk patients, especially perioperatively. Immediate implant placement, sinus lifts, bone regeneration, and multiple implant placement are the treatments in which PA are most commonly prescribed, as well as in patients with heart valve prostheses or a history of bacterial endocarditis and immunodeficiency.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 2990
Author(s):  
Ghazwan Almahrous ◽  
Sandra David-Tchouda ◽  
Aboubacar Sissoko ◽  
Nathalie Rancon ◽  
Jean-Luc Bosson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Bone Atrophy ◽  
One Year

Purpose: To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments. Methods: Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 were treated with BGS and 30 with CAIS. Immediately after treatment and one year later, PROMs were assessed, and the clinical success of both treatments was evaluated. Results: No significant differences were found between BGS and CAIS with regard to the following: loss of implants (p = 492); patient recommendation (p = 210); duration of surgery (p = 987); pain on the intervention day (p = 512); pain in the week after intervention (p = 299); and complications in the stage of surgery (p = 1.00). Similarly, at one year, no differences were found with regard to the following: pain around implant (p = 481); infection of implants (p = 491); abnormal radiographic imaging (p = 226); occurrence of undesirable events (p = 1.00); loss of one of the implants (p = 1.00); plaque detection (p = 1.00); bleeding on probing (p = 236); and presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 226). However, a significant difference was found among BGS and CAIS with regard to the number of consultations (p = 0001); number of implants placed (p = 033); and treatment difficulty (p = 0369). Significant differences were found for peri-implantitis (p = 0481) and radiology of craterization (p = 020) in clinical examination at the first year. Conclusion: Treatment difficulty and number of consultations were higher for BGS than for CAIS, as well as peri-implantitis and bone craterization at one year, indicating significant differences between the two treatments. However, there were no statistically significant differences between BGS and CAIS regarding the other PROMs, at placement and after one year.

The Efficacy of Mylohyoid Nerve Anesthesia in Dental Implant Placement at the Edentulous Posterior Mandibular Ridge

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan Ayberk Altug ◽  
Metin Sencimen ◽  
Altan Varol ◽  
Necdet Kocabiyik ◽  
Necdet Dogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Nerve Block ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Edentulous Mandible ◽  
Group A ◽  
Mylohyoid Nerve ◽  
Group B

The aim of this study is to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of mylohyoid and buccal nerve anesthesia at the posterior edentulous mandible versus regional anesthetic block to the inferior alveolar nerve in dental implant surgery. The study was composed of 2 groups. In the first group (group A), 14 voluntary adults (7 female and 7 male) received local infiltrations of 1 mL articaine HCl 4% with epinephrine 1/200 000 to the ipsilateral mylohyoid and buccal nerves. In the second group (group B, control; 9 female and 5 male adults), the inferior alveolar and the buccal nerve blocks were performed. Visual analog scales were obtained from patients to determine the level of pain during incision, drilling, implant placement, and suturing stages of implant surgery. A combination of buccal and mylohyoid nerve block offered an acceptable level of anesthesia. Two patients from group A stopped the ongoing surgery and had extraregional anesthesia by inferior alveolar nerve block. In group B, patients were operated on successfully. Local anesthetic infiltrations of the mylohyoid and the buccal nerve may be considered alternative methods of providing a convenient anesthetic state of the posterior mandibular ridge.

scholarly journals The influence of dental experience on a dental implant navigation system

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Mao Sun ◽  
Huey-Er Lee ◽  
Ting-Hsun Lan
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Surgical Navigation ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Experience Levels ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background This study evaluated the operating performance of an implant navigation system used by dental students and dentists of prosthodontic background with varying levels of experience. A surgical navigation system and optical tracking system were used, and dentists’ accuracies were evaluated in terms of differences between the positions of actually drilled holes and those of the holes planned using software before surgeries. Methods The study participants were 5 dental students or dentists who had studied in the same university and hospital but had different experience levels regarding implants. All participants were trained in operating the AqNavi system in the beginning of the study. Subsequently, using 5 pairs of dental models, each participant drilled 5 implant holes at 6 partially edentulous positions (11, 17, 26, 31, 36, and 47). In total, each participant conducted 30 drilling tests. Results In total, 150 tests among 5 dentists at 6 tooth positions (11, 17, 26, 31, 36, and 47) were conducted. Although a comparison of the tests revealed significant differences in the longitudinal error (P < .0001) and angular error (P = .0011), no significant difference was observed in the total error among the dentists. Conclusions A relatively long operating time was associated with relatively little implant experience. Through the dental navigation system, dental students can be introduced to dental implant surgery earlier than what was possible in the past. The results demonstrated that the operational accuracy of the dental implant navigation system is not restricted by participants’ implant experience levels. The implant navigation system assists the dentist in the ability to accurately insert the dental implant into the correct position without being affected by his/her own experience of implant surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document