Single preoperative dose versus long-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens in dental implant surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic regimens commonly used in dental implant surgery. Preoperative single-dose and long-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-center prospective study in which 215 patients underwent ambulatory endosseous implant placement. In the first group, 445 dental implants were placed in 125 patients after the administration of a single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotic with no postoperative antibiotics. In the second group, 302 dental implants were placed in 90 patients who received a preoperative dose of antibiotics and were instructed to take antibiotics postoperatively for 7 days. In both groups, 0.12% chlorhexidine pre- and postoperative mouth rinses were used. Patients returned for postoperative evaluation at 1 week, 2 weeks, and just prior to surgical uncovering. The surgical sites were assessed for pain, swelling, erythema, and purulence. RESULTS: In the first group, 3 patients developed wound dehiscence at 5 implant sites and 1 developed a minor inflammatory response. None of the patients in this group received further antibiotics. In the second group, 3 patients developed wound dehiscence, 2 developed an inflammatory response, and 1 was diagnosed with infection, for which another course of antibiotics was required. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups according to the Fisher 2 x 4 exact test (P = .56). DISCUSSION: Indiscriminate use of antibiotics is unacceptable in clinical practice today. Surgeons must adhere to basic principles to gain the most benefit from the use of prophylactic antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Long-term prophylactic antibiotic use in implant surgery was of no advantage or benefit over a single-dose preoperative antibiotic regimen in this patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".