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.

BACKGROUND: The question of whether antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered routinely for dental implant surgery is unresolved. Despite the lack of conclusive supportive evidence, antibiotics are often administered to reduce the risk of infection, which could lead to early implant failure. Increasing antibiotic resistance is a major concern and it is therefore important to reduce the overall use of antibiotics, including in dentistry. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in preventing early implant failure, in overall healthy patients undergoing dental implant surgery.

METHODS: , 2023, to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs). All RCTs comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotics/placebo in overall healthy patients receiving dental implants were included. The primary outcome was patients with early implant failure. Risk of bias was assessed, data were extracted, a meta-analysis was done, and GRADE certainty-of-evidence ratings were determined. The risk ratio (RR), the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 1086 abstracts were screened, and 17 articles were reviewed in full text. Seven RCTs with moderate or low risk of bias and with a total of 1859 patients and 3014 implants were included in the meta-analysis. With reference to early implant failure at patient level, the meta-analysis failed to disclose any statistically significant difference (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.30-1.47) between antibiotic prophylaxis and a placebo. The risk difference was -0.007 (95% CI: -0.035-0.020) leading to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 143.

CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery does not seem to have any substantial effect on early implant failure ( ). The results do not support routine antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery.

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery remains a contentious topic, with varying guidelines and clinical practices worldwide.

Aim: Report how Swedish dentists use antibiotic prophylaxis during dental implant surgery, based in a review of patient records.

Method: This retrospective, cross-sectional study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis habits of Swedish dentists, focusing on the relationship between surgical complexity and antibiotic use.

Results: Data from 450 patient records with registered implant surgeries at two major dental care providers, one public and one private, were analysed. Thirty-seven clinics provided the data, and 109 dentists performed the surgeries. Findings revealed that 72.2% of implant surgeries were straightforward procedures, with no administration of antibiotic prophylaxis in 70.5% of these. Conversely, 90% of bone augmentation cases involved antibiotic use, particularly in complex protocols utilizing synthetic materials and membranes. Overall, 54.4% of patients in the study population received no antibiotic prophylaxis at all. Surgical complexity was a significant predictor for antibiotic administration, while patient-specific factors, such as age, chronic diseases, and tobacco use, had limited influence.

Conclusion: Restrained antibiotic use in implant surgery in Sweden reflects alignment with current stewardship goals, particularly in straight forward procedures. However, continued administration in some uncomplicated cases and frequent use in complex surgeries highlight the need for clearer, evidence-based guidelines and standardized antibiotic protocols.

Background:

Antibiotic resistance is a critical global health challenge, necessitating judicious antibiotic use across all medical disciplines, including dentistry.

Methods:

This qualitative study explored the attitudes and decision-making processes of Swedish dentists regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery. A qualitative inductive research design was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with 17 dentists across Sweden. Purposive and snowball sampling ensured diverse perspectives.

Results:

Three key themes emerged: Perception of antibiotic resistance, Attitudes on antibiotic prophylaxis, and Need for clear guidelines. Participants demonstrated an awareness of antibiotic resistance as a significant public health concern but often perceived it as abstract compared to the immediate risks of postoperative infection. Their antibiotic prophylaxis practices varied widely, influenced by patient-specific factors, procedural complexity, and personal clinical experience. While some advocated selective use of antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk cases, others routinely prescribe it to minimize complications, reflecting an ongoing tension between patient safety and antibiotic stewardship. A common frustration among dentists was the lack of evidence-based guidelines, which left decision-making subject to individual interpretation and contributed to practice variability. This underscores the need for standardized protocols that balance effective infection prevention with minimal antibiotic use.

Conclusions:

This study shows that while dentists recognize the importance of addressing antibiotic resistance, this awareness often feels secondary to the immediate clinical risks of postoperative infections. Practice around antibiotic prophylaxis varies depending on individual clinical judgment, surgical protocol, patient factors, and the absence of clear, evidence-based guidelines. The study highlights the need for evidence-based guidelines that balance patient safety and antibiotic stewardship.