Clinical oral implants research · 2010
Bacteraemia following dental implants' placement.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Piñeiro A, Tomás I, Blanco J, Alvarez M, Seoane J, Diz P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence, duration and aetiology of bacteraemias following the placement of implants as well as the prophylactic efficacy of a chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) mouthrinse.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing implant placement were randomly distributed into two groups:
CONTROL GROUP: 30 patients with no prophylactic intervention before surgery. CHX group: 20 patients who performed a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse before surgery. Blood samples were collected at baseline, at 30 s after the insertion of implants and at 15 min after completion of the suturing of the mucoperiosteal flap. Samples were processed in the Bactec 9240, and the subculture and further identification of the isolates were performed using conventional microbiological techniques.
RESULTS: The prevalence of bacteraemias was 2% at baseline. In the control group, the prevalence of bacteraemias was 6.7% at 30 s and 3.3% at 15 min, but no statistically significant differences were achieved compared with the baseline percentage. In the CHX group, there were no positive cultures from blood samples obtained at 30 s or at 15 min.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement via a mucoperiosteal flap does not carry a significant risk of developing bacteraemias. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of focal infections such as bacterial endocarditis in "at-risk" patients undergoing dental implants is therefore questionable. Although its efficacy has not been confirmed statistically, we recommend a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse before treatment as proposed previously by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing implant placement were randomly distributed into two groups:
CONTROL GROUP: 30 patients with no prophylactic intervention before surgery. CHX group: 20 patients who performed a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse before surgery. Blood samples were collected at baseline, at 30 s after the insertion of implants and at 15 min after completion of the suturing of the mucoperiosteal flap. Samples were processed in the Bactec 9240, and the subculture and further identification of the isolates were performed using conventional microbiological techniques.
RESULTS: The prevalence of bacteraemias was 2% at baseline. In the control group, the prevalence of bacteraemias was 6.7% at 30 s and 3.3% at 15 min, but no statistically significant differences were achieved compared with the baseline percentage. In the CHX group, there were no positive cultures from blood samples obtained at 30 s or at 15 min.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement via a mucoperiosteal flap does not carry a significant risk of developing bacteraemias. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of focal infections such as bacterial endocarditis in "at-risk" patients undergoing dental implants is therefore questionable. Although its efficacy has not been confirmed statistically, we recommend a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse before treatment as proposed previously by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Anti-Infective Agents, LocalBacteremiaBacteriological TechniquesChemopreventionChlorhexidineChronic PeriodontitisDMF IndexDental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsDental MaterialsDental Plaque IndexFemaleGingivitisHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouthwashesPeriodontal IndexPeriodontal PocketPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical FlapsTime FactorsTitanium