International Journal of Oral Implantology, 02/2008

Objectives: To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and, if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. Data sources: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched and several journals were handsearched with no language restriction up to January 2008. Review methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to patients undergoing dental implant placement were eligible. Screening of studies, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Missing information was requested. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc.). Results: Two RCTs were identified: one comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (316 patients) and the other comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin + 500 mg four times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the two trials showed a statistically significant higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: RR = 0.22 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.86). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 13 to 100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 6% in patients not receiving antibiotics. The other outcomes were not statistically significant, and only two minor adverse events were recorded, one of which was in the placebo group. Conclusions: There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given 1 hour preoperatively significantly reduce failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. It remains unclear whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic. It might be recommendable to suggest the use of one dose of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental implant placement. Keywords: antibiotics, dental implants, prophylaxis, randomised controlled clinical trial, systematic review

Objectives: To compare success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy in irradiated patients. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to June 2007. Review methods: Systematic review with search without language restriction for randomised clinical trials only. Quality assessment of identified trials according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: We identified one RCT measuring dental implant outcomes in patients who had received radiotherapy. Twenty-six patients were randomised to HBO therapy or no HBO therapy. There were no statistically significant differences by group for prosthesis or implant failure, preimplantation or postimplantation complication, or patient satisfaction. This trial had a high risk of bias. Conclusions:We were unable to find any strong evidence to either support or refute the use of HBO therapy for improving the implant outcome for patients who have received radiotherapy. We would recommend that more RCTs are undertaken to provide better evidence for decision making by clinicians. Meanwhile, clinicians should be aware of the limited availability of evidence and should therefore provide patients with the appropriate information about the potential benefits and harms of HBO therapy as part of the consent process. Keywords: dental implants, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, irradiation

Objectives: To identify the most effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. Data sources: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched and several journals were handsearched with no language restriction up to January 2008. Review methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions for treating peri-implantitis were eligible. Screening of studies, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Missing information was requested. Outcome measures were: implant failure; complications; changes in radiographic marginal bone level, probing 'attachment' level (PAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), and recession; aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists; cost and treatment time. Results: Ten eligible trials were identified, and seven were included (148 patients). They tested: (1) local antibiotics vs ultrasonic debridement; (2) adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; (3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; (4) laser vs manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/ gel; (5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening; and (6) nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite vs Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of peri-implant bone showed improved PAL and PPD (0.6 mm). After 6 months, peri-implant infrabony defects > 3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and barriers gained 0.5 mm more PAL and PPD than those treated with hydroxyapatite. In four trials subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to achieve results similar to more complex therapies. Conclusions: There is very little reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for peri-implantitis. Sample sizes were too small and follow up too short. This is not to say that currently used interventions are ineffective. Larger well-designed RCTs are needed. Keywords: dental implants, peri-implantitis, randomised controlled clinical trial, systematic review

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of flapless placed implants immediately or early loaded at 2 months with full-arch prostheses. Materials and methods: Thirty patients were randomised: 15 to the immediately loaded group and 15 to the early loaded group. All implants had to be inserted with a minimum torque > 48 Ncm. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, biological and biomechanical complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, patient satisfaction and implant stability quotient (ISQ) assessed with a resonance frequency analysis instrument. Results: Ninety implants were placed in the immediately loaded and 87 in the early loaded group. Four localised flaps had to be elevated. Six implants in five patients did not reach the planned insertion torque. Four were immediately replaced by larger diameters ones, one was early loaded and another removed just after placement. After 1 year no drop-out occurred. One implant failed in the immediately loaded group versus three early loaded implants in two patients. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for implant losses, complications, and mean marginal bone level changes. There were borderline significant differences for mean ISQ values, and patients in the immediately loaded group were significantly more satisfied than those early loaded. When comparing mean ISQ values taken 2 months after placement with year 1 data within each group, values increased significantly. Conclusions: Maxillary cross-arch prostheses can be successfully loaded the same day of flapless implant placement, increasing patient satisfaction while decreasing treatment time and patient discomfort. No apparent advantages were seen when loading implants at 2 months. Keywords: dental implants, edentulous maxillae, early loading, flapless, immediate loading

Aim: Rehabilitation of the edentulous atrophic maxilla by implants to allow placement of a fixed dental prosthesis remains a challenge, especially if immediate function is provided. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the success rate of immediately loaded zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae. Materials and methods: Forty-two consecutively treated patients (19 men and 23 women), with a mean age of 57 years (range: 34 to 79 years) were followed for at least one year (range: 12 to 42 months, mean: 20.5 months). Thirty-seven patients were totally edentulous and five were partially edentulous. In total, 81 zygomatic and 140 conventional implants were inserted. The success criteria for the zygomatic implants were: (1) confirmed individual implant anchorage to the zygomatic bone by means of anteroposterior cranial radiograph; (2) the implant acting as an anchor for the functional prostheses; (3) no suppuration, pain, or ongoing pathological process at maxillary and zygomatic level; (4) confirmed individual implant stability. All patients had a fixed prosthesis screwed onto implants within 48 hours of implant placement. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Results: After one year, there was no patient drop-out. None of the zygomatic implants were lost over the observation period (100% success rate). Four conventional implants were lost, resulting in a success rate of 97%. All the prostheses were stable. Oroantral fistula and sinusitis was found in one patient, which was solved with antibiotics and meatotomy, with no further complications. Soft tissue swelling and pain at the zygomatic area were found in another patient after 10 days of surgery. This was solved with antibiotics, with no further complications. Conclusions: Zygomatic implants together with conventional implants in severely resorbed maxillae appear to be a reliable technique for providing immediate function to patients. The time of treatment can be substantially decreased in a predictable way if zygomatic implants are loaded immediately after placement. Keywords: immediate loading, zygomatic implants