# What is the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing early complications following implant surgery? a systematic review

Jeanne Dubedout, Gian Marco Podda, Mathilde Fénelon, Jean-Christophe Fricain, Virginie Chuy, Sylvain Catros

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Jeanne Dubedout, Gian Marco Podda, Mathilde Fénelon, Jean-Christophe Fricain, Virginie Chuy, et al.. What is the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing early complications following implant surgery? a systematic review. Journal of Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery, 2025, 31 (4), pp.29-40.
10.1051/mbcb/2025032 hal-05482178

HAL Id: hal-05482178

https://u-bordeaux.hal.science/hal-05482178v1

Submitted on 2 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Systematic Review

## What is the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing early complications following implant surgery? a systematic review

Jeanne Dubedout<sup>1,a</sup>, Gian Marco Podda<sup>2,3,a,*</sup>, Mathilde Fénelon<sup>1,2</sup>, Jean-Christophe Fricain<sup>1,2</sup>, Virginie Chuy<sup>1,2</sup>, Sylvain Catros<sup>1,2</sup>

(Received: 13 January 2025, accepted: 4 August 2025)

**Keywords:**
Antibiotic prophylaxis / dental implant / antimicrobial resistance / systematic review / peri-implantitis / osseointegration

**Abstract - Introduction:** This systematic review of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to answer the following question: "Is antibiotic prophylaxis administered prior to implant surgery, in comparison with a placebo, effective in preventing early osseointegration complications and failure in immunocompetent patients?".

**Materials and methods:** A systematic review was carried out using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, searching for articles published up to May 2023. Study selection and data extraction were performed in a double-blind manner. The primary outcome assessed was early implant failure within the first 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes includes: surgical complications, patient-reported adverse events and postoperative pain level. The risk of bias was evaluated with the RoB 2 tool. **Results:** Seven RCTs were included, encompassing a total of 1,846 participants. Two trials involved patients undergoing simultaneous bone grafting during implant placement. Six studies administered amoxicillin, while one used clindamycin. None of the trials reported statistically significant differences in implant stability or postoperative complications between the antibiotic and placebo groups (p > 0.05).

**Conclusion:** Antimicrobial resistance remains a critical public health concern. The findings of this systematic review do not support the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in healthy patients undergoing implant surgery.

## Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance is currently one of the most pressing topics in public health [1,2]. A recent report published in The Lancet estimated that resistant bacterial species contribute to 4.95 million deaths annually, with 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to these infections [3]. Since the early 2000s, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been actively raising awareness about this issue through various campaigns [4] and the development of global guidelines [5]. One of the primary strategies for combating antimicrobial resistance is ensuring the correct administration of antimicrobial medications.

Antibiotic prophylaxis refers to the perioperative administration of antibiotics, typically before surgery, to prevent potential infections at the surgical site or at distant location [6].

This practice differs from antibiotic therapy, which involves prescribing antibiotics to treat an active infection and usually requires a longer course of treatment [7].

Despite extensive research into the use of antibiotics in dentistry, a clear consensus has yet to be reached [8–10]. Current scientific guidelines recommend that antibiotic use in dentistry be restricted to well-defined clinical indications [11,12]. However, in implant dentistry, antibiotics are frequently prescribed, often inappropriately, not only to prevent systemic complications but also to reduce the bacterial load at the implant site [13,14]. Postoperative infection at the implant site is recognized as a potential cause of early implant failure [15]. Other contributing factors include insufficient primary stability, micromovements during healing, excessive surgical trauma, poor bone quality, and unfavourable patient habits such as smoking or inadequate oral hygiene [16–18].

Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent early implant failure resulting from postoperative infections. Although several systematic reviews have addressed this topic, the evidence remains inconclusive regarding its efficacy

<footnote n="1">¹ UFR des Sciences Odontologiques, Univ. Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CHU Bordeaux, Department of Oral Surgery, 33076 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Oral Sciences and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ CHU Bordeaux, Department of Odontology, 33076 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: g.m.podda@hotmail.it</footnote>

<footnote>ª J Dubedout and GM Podda contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table I.** MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) descriptors.</caption><tr><td>Key concepts</td><td>Ο Antibiotic<br/>Ο Antibiotic prophylaxis</td><td>Ο Implant surgery<br/>Ο Dental implant<br/>Ο Implantology</td><td>Ο Complication<br/>Ο Failure</td></tr><tr><td>MeSH descriptors from PubMed</td><td>Ο Antibiotic prophylaxis</td><td>Ο Dental implant</td><td>Ο Osteointegration</td></tr><tr><td>Thesaurus</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Free terms</td><td>Ο Antibiotic premedication<br/>Ο Antibióprophylaxis<br/>Ο Antibiotherapy<br/>Ο Antibiotic</td><td>Ο Implantology<br/>Ο Implant surgery<br/>Ο Dental implant</td><td>Ο Sequels<br/>Ο Complication<br/>Ο Failure<br/>Ο Success<br/>Ο Survival</td></tr></table>

and optimal administration protocols. While some studies report a reduction in early implant failure rates with prophylactic antibiotic use [19], others find no significant benefit [20]. A recent review further emphasized the lack of definitive evidence concerning the ideal antibiotic type and dosage for prophylaxis in implant dentistry [21].

To help clarify the current evidence, this systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in immunocompetent patients undergoing dental implant surgery. Specifically, it addresses the following research question:

"Is antibiotic prophylaxis administered prior to implant surgery, in comparison with a placebo, effective in preventing early osseointegration complications and failure in immunocompetent patients?"

## Material and methods

### Protocol

This systematic review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [22].

Before the start of this study, the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427802).

### Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria of this systematic review were organized by the PICOS system:

- (P) Population: patients, partially or totally edentulous, without immunodepression (immunocompetent) or high-risk heart disease for infective endocarditis undergoing dental implant placement treatment.

- (I) Intervention: any type of antibiotics administered pre-operatively (antibiotic prophylaxis) at any dose and for any duration.

- (C) Comparison: placebo.

- (O) Type of outcome measures. Primary outcome: early implant failure (due to lack of osteointegration) within the first 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcome: surgical complications (wound dehiscence, suppuration, fistula formation, and abscesses), patient-reported adverse events (erythema, urticaria, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and pain level. All prosthetic complications were excluded.

- (S) Types of studies: double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a maximum follow-up of 6 months in English or French.

### Search strategy

The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were used for the systematic search of articles. No handsearching or grey literature analysis was performed.

The search process began and was completed on May 18, 2023.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors related to the key concepts, as well as free terms, were used (Tab. I) and search equations designed to each database were developed as follows:

- PubMed: ("Antibiotic Prophylaxis"[Mesh] OR Antibiotic* OR "Antibiotic prophylaxis" OR Antibióprophylaxis OR "Antibiotic premedication" OR Antibiotherap*) AND ("Dental Implants"[Mesh] OR Implantology* OR "Implant surgeon*" OR "Dental implant*" OR "Implant dental") AND ("Osseointegration"[Mesh] OR Osseointegration OR Complication* OR Failure* OR Sequel* OR Survival OR Success).

- Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (antibiotic* OR "Antibiotic prophylaxis" OR antibióprophylaxis OR "Antibiotic premedication" OR Antibiotherap*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (implantology* OR "Implant surgeon*" OR "Dental implant*" OR "Implant dental*") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (complication* OR failure* OR sequel* OR Survival OR Success OR Osseointegration).

- WOS: (((((TS=((Antibiotic* OR "Antibiotic prophylaxis" OR Antibióprophylaxis OR "Antibiotic premedication" OR Antibiotherap*))) AND TS=((Implantology* OR "Implant surgeon*" OR "Dental implant*" OR "Implant dental*))) AND TS=((Complication* OR Failure* OR sequel* OR Survival OR Success OR Osseointegration)))).

### Study selection

No filters, other than the search equations, were applied in the databases during the article search.

Articles were imported into the bibliographic management software Zotero© (https://www.zotero.org) and duplicates were removed.
Then, using the Rayyan software (https://www.rayyan.ai), a double-blind selection involving two reviewers (JD, SC) was conducted on the titles and abstracts of the collected articles. The final eligibility of the articles selected for this systematic literature review was assessed on the full text, also in a double-blind manner, by the two reviewers. At each stage, articles for which opinions differed were discussed by the two reviewers to reach an agreement.

## Data extraction

The data were extracted by two authors independently (JD, SC) and synthesized into tables. In case of disagreement, a discussion was held to reach a final agreement.

Information for data extraction included:

- Lead author, publication year, country;

- Recruitment setting, trial design and follow-up duration;

- External funding;

- Type of antibiotic tested and administration protocol of the antibiotic and the placebo;

- Co-treatments: any additional treatment performed before and after the surgery;

- Number of participants;

- Main results on the evaluated outcomes.

## Risk of bias assessment

The quality of the studies was assessed by a single reviewer (JD) using the 'Risk of Bias 2' (RoB 2) tool, developed by the Cochrane Collection [23].

This tool allows for the evaluation of bias risks in RCTs.

After all, the studies were classified following three different possibilities: low risk of bias, some concerns and high risk of bias.

No study was excluded based on the risk of bias assessment.

## Results

### Study selection

The electronic search in the three databases yielded 1,852 results. After removing duplicates, 1,047 articles remained, of which 20 articles were retained after evaluation of titles and abstracts.

Following a second double-blind assessment, based on a full-text review, 13 studies were excluded:

- 3 due to lack of full-text availability, even after contacting the authors;

- 4 of them were not clinical trials (2 literature reviews and 2 editorials);

- 3 of them were clinical trials without a placebo group;

- 1 study had a follow-up duration exceeding 6 months;

- 1 study was a RCT but not double-blinded;

- 1 study compared the effects of antibiotics on bacterial flora rather than on postoperative complications or early failures of implant surgery.

Only one article inspired disagreement between the two reviewers, which was resolved by discussion [24].

Succeeding the study selection process 7 articles were selected [24-30].

The selection process is described in Figure 1.

## Study methods and characteristics

The main characteristics of the 7 included studies are summarized in Table II.

The studies were conducted between 2008 and 2023. Six of the studies were carried out in Europe [25-27,28-30]. The two trials conducted in Italy were made by the same research group led by Esposito et al. [25,27], while the two conducted in Spain were directed by different teams [26,30]. Regarding the other trials, one was done in Sweden [29], one was conducted in Ireland [28] and one was a multicentric international study [24].

The common aim of each of the seven trials was to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis before the placement of dental implants to improve clinical outcomes and preventing early postoperative complications.

The patients were selected from both private dental clinics and University hospitals and presented with one or several edentulous areas. Two trials include patients receiving concomitant bone grafting during implant surgery act [26,29].

The exclusion criteria identified in the different studies selected were as follows:

- Heart disease;

- Presence of orthopedic or cardiac prostheses;

- Immunodeficiency;

- Uncontrolled diabetes;

- Patients who had undergone radiotherapy to the head or neck;

- Chronic or acute infection near the implant site;

- Patients already receiving antibiotic treatment for unrelated systemic issues;

- Pregnant patients;

- Patients treated with bisphosphonates;

- Patients with blood coagulation disorders.

In three studies, only one implant was placed per patient [24,26,30], while in the other four studies [25,27,28,29], patients underwent either single or multiple implant placements. In total, the seven trials included 1,846 participants. In all studies, both the antibiotic and placebo groups had an equivalent number of patients.

The antibiotic prophylactic protocols varied between the studies as follows:

- One study compared the administration of 3 grams of amoxicillin 1h before the procedure to a placebo administered at the same time [28].

- Four studies compared the oral administration of 2 grams of amoxicillin 1h before the procedure to a placebo [25-27,29].
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram.</figcaption></figure>

- One study evaluated four different dosing regimens [24]: the positive control group received 2 grams of amoxicillin orally 1 h before the procedure; test group 1 received 2 grams of amoxicillin immediately postoperatively; test group 2 received 2 grams of amoxicillin 1 h before the procedure, followed by 500 milligrams three times a day for 2-3 days; the control group received 2 grams of placebo 1 h before the procedure.

- One study compared the oral administration of clindamycin (600 mg) in two capsules taken 1 h before the procedure, with two placebo capsules given to the control group [30].

Overall, of the seven trials, six used amoxicillin as the antibiotic, while only one trial evaluated clindamycin.

In three trials, participants received no additional instructions or treatments beyond the antibiotic prophylaxis [24,29,30]. Preceding the surgery, patients underwent professional debridement, only if necessary, and at least one session of oral hygiene training in four trials [25-27,28]. Moreover, prior to implant placement, participants in all studies rinsed with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate for 1 min. In three studies, participants were instructed to use chlorhexidine mouthwash for one week postoperatively, rinsing two to three times a day [25,27,28].

Three trials implemented a postoperative pain management protocol, prescribing paracetamol (1g) or ibuprofen (600mg) as needed [26,28,30]. No details were provided by the other trials on this topic.
<table><caption>**Table II.** General overview of the included studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Settings</th><th>Design</th><th>Nº of centres</th><th>Follow-up funding (Months)</th><th>External funding (Type)</th><th>Test</th><th>Interventions Control</th><th>Adjunctive treatments</th><th>Participants N</th><th>Analysed failures</th><th>Implant Adverse Post-op events</th><th>Collected outcomes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Esposito et al. [22]</td><td>Italy</td><td>Private practice</td><td>Parallel 11</td><td>4</td><td>No (only free antibiotic and placebo tablets donated by Merck Generics Italia)</td><td>Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Oral hygiene training 330 316<br>Debridement<br>Chlorhexidine mouthwash before the operation and postoperatively for one week</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Anitua et al. [23]</td><td>Spain</td><td>Private practice</td><td>Parallel 8</td><td>3</td><td>Yes (Implant Company: BTT)</td><td>Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Oral hygiene training 105 105<br>Debridement<br>Chlorhexidine mouthwash before the operation and postoperatively for one week</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Esposito et al. [25]</td><td>Italy</td><td>Private practice</td><td>Parallel 10</td><td>4</td><td>No (only free antibiotic and placebo tablets donated by Merck Generics Italia)</td><td>Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Oral hygiene training 509 506<br>Debridement<br>Chlorhexidine mouthwash before the operation and postoperatively for one week</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Tan et al. [26]</td><td>International University</td><td>Parallel 7</td><td>2</td><td>Supported by a research grant of the ITTI<br>Foundation (Project 616-2009) and the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland.</td><td></td><td>Group 1: Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure<br>Group 2 Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally immediately after the surgery<br>Group 3 Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure and 500 mg administered orally three times a day on the second and third days</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Not reported</td><td>329 329</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table II. (continued).</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Settings</th><th>Design</th><th>Nº of centres</th><th>Follow-up (Months)</th><th>External funding (Type)</th><th>Test</th><th>Interventions Control</th><th>Adjunctive treatments</th><th>Participants N</th><th>Analysed</th><th>Collected outcomes Implant failures</th><th>Adverse events</th><th>pain (VAS)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nolan et al. [27]</td><td>Ireland</td><td>University</td><td>Parallel 1</td><td>4</td><td>Not reported</td><td>Amoxicillin 3 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Oral hygiene training 71 55<br>Debridement<br>Chlorhexidine mouthwash before the operation and postoperatively for one week<br>Not reported</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Momand et al. [24]</td><td>Sweden</td><td>University and Hospital</td><td>Parallel 7</td><td>6</td><td>Supported by grants from Skåne Regional Council, Sweden and Magn. Bergvalls Stiftelse, Sweden.</td><td>Amoxicillin 2 g administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Not reported</td><td>62 62</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Santamaría Arrieta et al. [28]</td><td>Spain</td><td>University</td><td>Parallel 1</td><td>2</td><td>Supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the project "PI18/00809" (Co-funded by European Regional Development Fund/ European Social Fund; "A way to make Europe"/ "Investing in your future")</td><td>Clindamycin 600 mg (two capsules) administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Placebo administered orally 1 h before the procedure</td><td>Not reported</td><td>62 62</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

TG: test group; CG: control group.
<table><caption>**Table III.** Results of the individual included studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Implant failure</th><th>Reported complications</th><th>Adverse events</th><th>Prosthetis failure</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Esposito et al. [25]</td><td>TG: 2/158</td><td>After one week</td><td>TG: 1/158</td><td>TG: 2/158</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 8/158</td><td>TG: 4/158</td><td>CG: 1/158</td><td>CG: 4/158</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,104</td><td>CG: 2/158</td><td>p value = 1</td><td>p value = 0,684</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Anitua et al. [26]</td><td>TG: 2/52</td><td>p value = 0,684</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 2/53</td><td>TG: 1/158</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Esposito et al. [27]</td><td>TG: 5/252</td><td>p value = 0,960</td><td>TG: 0/252</td><td>TG: 4/252</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 12/254</td><td>TG: 6/252</td><td>CG: 0/254</td><td>CG: 10/254</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,09</td><td>CG: 7/254</td><td>p value = 1</td><td>p value = 0,11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Tan et al. [27]</td><td>TG1: 0/81</td><td>p value = 0,69</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>TG2: 0/82</td><td>Suppuration pvalue = not reported</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>TG3: 0/86</td><td>Swellig p value = 0,48</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CG: 1/80</td><td>Pain p value = 0,78</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,47</td><td>After two weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Nolan et al. [28]</td><td>TG: 0/27</td><td>Suppuration pvalue = 1</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 5/28</td><td>Swellig p value = 0,80</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,0515</td><td>Pain p value = 0,88</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>After four weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Suppuration pvalue = 0,49</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Swellig p value = 0,81</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Pain p value = 0,24</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>After eight weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Suppuration pvalue = 1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Swellig p value = 0,61</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Pain p value = not reported</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Momand et al. [29]</td><td>TG: 6/238</td><td>After two days</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td><td rowspan="2">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 7/235</td><td>Suppuration pvalue = not reported</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,75</td><td>Swellig p value = 0,65</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Pain p value = 0,10</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>After seven days</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Suppuration pvalue = 0,49</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Swellig p value = 0,29</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Pain p value = 0,016</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Momand et al. [29]</td><td>TG: 6/238</td><td>After one week (infection)</td><td>TG: 0/238</td><td>Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 7/235</td><td>TG: 2/238</td><td>CG: 0/235</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>p value = 0,75</td><td>CG: 5/235</td><td>p value = 1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>p value = 0,25</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>After two weeks (infection)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table III.** (continued).</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Implant failure</th><th>Reported complications</th><th>Adverse events</th><th>Prosthesis failure</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Santamaría Arrieta et al. [30]</td><td>TG: 2/31</td><td>TG: 5/238<br>CG: 7/235</td><td>TG: 1/31</td><td rowspan="4">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td>CG: 0/31</td><td>CG: 2/31</td><td>CG: 0/31</td></tr><tr><td>p value = 0,246</td><td>p value = 0,5</td><td>p value = 0,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

TG: test group; CG: control group.

In one study, implants were treated with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) before placement in both groups [26].

In order to evaluate early implant failure, all seven trials assessed implant osseointegration through clinical evaluation, defined by implant mobility or infection necessitating removal. The Ostell™ system was used in two trials to assess implant stability at two months [30] or three months [26]. Two other studies assessed implant stability after four months by tightening the implant abutment to 28 N/cm with a manual wrench [25,27].

None of the trials found a statistically significant difference in implant failure rate between the antibiotic and placebo groups, with all reported *p*-values > 0.05 (see Tab. III for a summary).

Nolan *et al.* highlighted that all the implant losses occurred during multiple implant placement surgeries [28]. The same authors identified a correlation between surgery duration and implant success as a potential risk factor [28].

Postoperative complications were assessed one and two weeks after implant placement in two studies [27,29], while one study performed evaluations at 1, 7, 14, 28, and 56 days postoperatively [26]. Three studies performed implant evaluations at two [24], three [28], or both three and six months [29] postoperatively, but in these studies, the details of the evaluation methods were not specified. All trials monitored the complications such as wound dehiscence, suppuration, fistula formation, and abscesses, while patient-reported adverse events included erythema, urticaria, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. None of the trials found a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the antibiotic and placebo groups, with all reported *p*-values > 0.05 (see Tab. III for a summary).

Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in three studies [24,28,30]. Among these studies, only the one published by Nolan *et al.* reported a significant reduction in post-surgical pain levels in the antibiotic prophylaxis group compared to the placebo group [28].

### Risk of bias within studies

Figure 2 presents the risk of bias assessment for the selected RCTs.

Overall, four studies were found to have a low risk of bias [25–27,30], while three studies raised some concerns [24,28,29]. The domains D3 (Bias due to missing outcome

data) and D5 (Bias in the selection of the reported result) exhibited the highest percentage of risk. In contrast, domains D1 (Bias arising from the randomization process) and D4 (Bias in the measurement of the outcome) showed the lowest risk of bias.

### Discussion

Various antibiotic prophylaxis protocols have been described in the literature, yet no consensus exists on the most effective approach. Amoxicillin is the most widely used antibiotic, with six of the studies included in this review employing it [24,28,29]. Romandini *et al.* concluded that current evidence is insufficient to recommend a specific dosage [21], while Esposito *et al.* suggested administering 2–3 g of antibiotics prior to implant surgery under strict aseptic conditions to reduce the risk of implant failure [19].

Only seven studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review, and their limited number necessitates a cautious interpretation of the findings. Nonetheless, the consistency in study protocols and follow-up periods (ranging from 2 to 6 months) lends support to the validity of their results. Overall, the synthesized literature in this review does not support the hypothesis that antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in preventing early osseointegration complications or implant failures in immunocompetent patients when compared to a placebo.

To ensure that the findings were representative of a generally healthy population; while maintaining diversity in age, sex, lifestyle, and medical history, we verified the equivalence of sample sizes and participant characteristics across all groups. Notably, some included studies did not exclude smokers, thereby enhancing the generalizability of the findings [31].

The recommendations issued by AFSSAPS in 2011 advise against the use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to implant placement in healthy patients [32]. Similarly, the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Consensus Conference in 2015 discouraged the use of prophylactic antibiotics for systemically healthy individuals undergoing implant surgery [33]. More recently, the ITI Consensus Conference recommended the administration of antibiotics only after assessing the patient's overall medical risk [34]. The findings of this systematic review are in agreement with these recommendations.
<table><caption>**Fig. 2.** Risk of bias summary.</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>D1</th><th>D2</th><th>D3</th><th>D4</th><th>D5</th><th>Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Esposito et al. (24)<br>2008</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Anitua et al. (25)<br>2009</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Esposito et al. (26)<br>2010</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Tan et al. (27)<br>2014</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Nolan et al. (28)<br>2014</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Momand et al. (29)<br>2022</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Santamaría Arrieta et al (30)<br>2023</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Domains</th><th colspan="2">Judgement</th></tr><tr><th>High</th><th>Low</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>D1: Bias arising from the randomization process</td><td>High</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>D2: Bias due to deviations from intended intervention.</td><td>Some concerns</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>D3: Bias due to missing outcome data.</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>D4: Bias in measurement of the outcome.</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>D5: Bias in selection of the reported result.</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

Furthermore, our conclusions align with those of a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed 12 high-quality studies and found that antibiotics do not significantly reduce early postoperative complications [20]. However, unlike the present review, the study by Torof et al. included cases where antibiotics were administered postoperatively and included patients with systemic conditions. Additionally, no restriction was placed on follow-up duration, which accounts for the larger number of studies included. By focusing exclusively on preoperative antibiotic prescriptions in healthy individuals, our review specifically addresses the efficacy of commonly used prophylactic protocols.

In contrast, some literature presents divergent conclusions [35–37]. For instance, Tan et al. concluded in their meta-analysis that 2 g of amoxicillin may reduce early implant failures [35]. However, nine out of the fifteen studies included were assessed as having a high risk of bias, highlighting the need for more rigorous research. Similarly, Roca-Millan et al. supported the use of a single prophylactic dose in healthy patients [36], though only four of their eleven included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias. By contrast, the present review exclusively included double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, leading to a low risk of bias classification in key domains (D1 and D4) for all included studies, as shown in Figure 2.

Despite the lack of supporting evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis remains commonly prescribed in clinical practice, often driven by clinicians’ concerns about infections, implant

failure, patient discomfort, economic consequences, and the desire to ensure perfect clinical outcomes. However, non-compliance with evidence-based guidelines contributes to the rise of antimicrobial resistance, increased healthcare costs, and the risk of adverse effects associated with antibiotic therapy [3]. Postoperative antibiotic administration, in particular, does not appear to be justified [21].

Interestingly, the number of implants placed simultaneously may be a risk factor for early implant failure. One study found that all patients with implant failures had received multiple implants during a single surgery [28]. This study also identified a correlation between longer surgical duration and increased risk of failure and complications; all failures occurred in procedures exceeding 1 h [28]. Conversely, Anitua et al., who limited their analysis to single-implant placements, found no significant association between procedure time and implant failure [26].

Clean surgical techniques and clinician expertise remain critical for implant success. Recent studies suggest that routine clean protocols may be sufficient to ensure favourable outcomes, and strict aseptic conditions may not significantly improve success rates in procedures without bone grafting [38].

Limitations of this review include the use of only three electronic databases, which may have limited the comprehensiveness of the search. Additionally, the risk of bias was assessed by a single reviewer; a double-blind risk assessment process would have enhanced the reliability of this evaluation.
## Conclusion

The results of this systematic literature review support the non-recommendation of antibiotic prophylaxis in healthy patients before implant surgery. In the context of a global fight against antibiotic resistance, it is essential and urgent to further clarify and guide practitioners' therapeutic decisions.

Indeed, the hypothetical benefits of routine antibiotic prophylaxis before implant surgery do not justify its use in light of the global threat posed by antibiotic resistance.

## Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

## Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## Author contribution statement

Dubedout J : Data analysis; Podda G: Data analysis; Fricain JC: Manuscript correction and scientific support; Fénelon M: Manuscript correction and scientific support; Chuy V: Statistical analysis; Catros S: Study planning, data analysis, and supervision.

## References

1. O'Neill J. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://wellcomecollection.org/works/thvwsuba

2. Davies SC, Fowler T, Watson J, Livermore DM, Walker D. Annual report of the chief medical officer: infection and the rise of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet 2013;381:1606-1609.

3. Murray CJL, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, Swetschinski L, Robles Aguilar G, Gray A, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2022;399:629-655.

4. World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015 [cited 2024 Oct 23]. 28 p. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/193736

5. The WHO AWaRe (Access, Watch, Reserve) Antibiotic Book 1st ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2022. 1 p.

6. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review [Internet] 2010. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448007/

7. Salgado-Peralvo AO, Kewalramani N, Garcia-Sanchez A, Peña-Cardelles JF. 'Antibiotic prophylaxis' and 'preventive antibiotic therapy': two sides of the same coin. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022;123:e159-e160.

8. Milic T, Raidoo P, Gebauer D. Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;59:633-642.

9. Sperotto F, France K, Gobbo M, Bindakhil M, Pimolbutr K, Holmes H, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2024;9:599.

10. Rutherford SJ, Glenny AM, Roberts G, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing bacterial endocarditis following dental procedures. Cochrane Oral Health Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet] 2022 May 10 [cited 2024 Oct 23];2022(5). Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5

11. Lockhart PB, Tampi MP, Abt E, Aminosariae A, Durkin MJ, Fouad AF, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling. J Am Dent Assoc 2019;150:906-921.e12.

12. Wilson WR, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Bolger AF, DeSimone DC, Kazi DS, et al. Prevention of Viridans Group streptococcal infective endocarditis: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation [Internet] 2021 May 18 [cited 2024 Oct 23];143(20). Available from: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000969

13. Salgado-Peralvo AO, Kewalramani N, Peña-Cardelles JF, Mateos-Moreno MV, Monsalve-Guil L, Jiménez-Guerra Á, et al. Preventive antibiotic prescribing habits among professionals dedicated to oral implantology: an observational study. Antibiotics 2021;10:301.

14. Surapaneni H, Yalamanchili P, Basha M, Potluri S, Elisetti N, Kiran Kumar M. Antibiotics in dental implants: a review of literature. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2016;8:28.

15. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:443-476.

16. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Factors influencing early dental implant failures. J Dent Res 2016;95:995-1002.

17. Manzano G, Montero J, Martín-Vallejo J, Del Fabbro M, Bravo M, Testori T. Risk factors in early implant failure: a meta-analysis. Implant Dent 2016;25:272-280.

18. Esposito M, Hirsch J, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants, (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106:527-551.

19. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications. Cochrane Oral Health Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet] 2013 Jul 31 [cited 2024 Oct 23];2019(10). Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004152.pub4

20. Torof E, Morrissey H, Ball PA. Antibiotic use in dental implant procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Mex) 2023;59:713.

21. Romandini M, De Tullio I, Congedi F, Kalemaj Z, D'Ambrosio M, Lafori A, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis at dental implant placement: which is the best protocol? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:382-395.

22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;71:10-11.

23. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 14898:10-11.
24. Tan WC, Ong M, Han J, Mattheos N, Pjetursson BE, Tsai AY, et al. Effect of systemic antibiotics on clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implant therapy — a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:185-193.

25. Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Bozzoli P, Consolo U, Felice P, Ferri V, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implants: a multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2008;1:23-31.

26. Anitua E, Aguirre JJ, Gorosabel A, Barrio P, Errazquin JM, Román P, et al. A multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial of antibiotic prophylaxis for placement of single dental implants. Eur J Oral Implantol 2009;2:283-292.

27. Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Bozzoli P, Checchi L, Ferri V, Landriani S, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics at placement of dental implants: a pragmatic multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:135-143.

28. Nolan R, Kemmoona M, Polyzois I, Claffey N. The influence of prophylactic antibiotic administration on post-operative morbidity in dental implant surgery. A prospective double blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:252-259.

29. Momand P, Becktor JP, Naimi-Akbar A, Tobin G, Götrick B. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery: a multicenter placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2022;24:116-124.

30. Santamaría Arrieta G, Rodríguez Sánchez F, Rodriguez-Andrés C, Barbier L, Arteagoitia I. The effect of preoperative clindamycin in reducing early oral implant failure: a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2022;27:1113-1122.

31. Naseri R, Yaghini J, Feizi A. Levels of smoking and dental implants failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2020;47:518-528.

32. Lesclous P. Prescription des antibiotiques en pratique bucco-dentaire. Recommandations de bonne pratique: Afssaps 2011. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillo-Faciale Chir Orale 2013;114:116-118.

33. Klinge B, Flemming T, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Eisner BM, Hultin M, et al. The patient undergoing implant therapy. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:64-67.

34. Jensen SS, Aghaloo T, Jung RE, Bertl K, Buser D, Chappuis V, et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The role of bone dimensions and soft tissue augmentation procedures on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of implant treatment. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023;34:43-49.

35. Tan LW, Ng YE, Giok KC, Veettil SK, Menon RK. Comparative efficacy of different amoxicillin dosing regimens in preventing early implant failure—a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Antibiotics 2023;12:512.

36. Roca-Millan E, Estrugo-Devesa A, Merlos A, Jané-Salas E, Vinuesa T, López-López J. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce early implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antibiotics 2021;10:698.

37. Lund B, Hultin M, Tranæus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. Complex systematic review - Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1-14.

38. Cardemil C, Ristevski Z, Alsén B, Dahlin C. Influence of different operatory setups on implant survival rate: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:288-291.

**Cite this article as:** Dubedout J, Podda GM, Fénelon M, Fricain J-C, Chuy V, Catros S. 2025. What is the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing early complications following implant surgery? a systematic review. *J Oral Med Oral Surg*. 31: 29. https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2025032