THEMATIC

ABSTRACT REVIEW
Section Editor
Clark Stanford, DDS, PhD
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Emad W. Estafanous, BDS, MSD

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Guy Huynh-Ba, DDS, MS Jan-Eirik Ellingsen, DDS, PhD

University of Texas Health Science Center University of Oslo
San Antonio, Texas Oslo, Norway

Thomas W. Oates, DMD, PhD Martin Osswald, BDS, MDent

University of Texas Health Science Center University of Alberta
San Antonio, Texas Alberta, Canada

Dental Implant Success in Challenging Situations?

O sseointegration of dental implants has reached a

great success rate, yet challenging clinical scenari-
os and/or conditions impact these survival and success
rates. Several recent studies have investigated these
clinical scenarios, updating the management and the
strategic treatment planning to increase the success
rate of dental implants.
Linsen et al investigated the effect of head and neck
radiation therapy on the long-term survival of implants
and concluded that no significant effects were noted
on survival rates, but described higher initial failure
rates during the early healing of oral implants. Claudy
et al suggested that a waiting period of 12 months af-
ter radiotherapy may decrease this risk of failure. To de-
crease the chances of oral implant failure in irradiated
patients, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) was intro-
duced in the 1980s. Recently, the Cochrane Oral Health
Group evaluated the effect of HBO therapy on the suc-
cess of dental implants in randomized controlled trials
and concluded that HBO may not offer any appreciable
clinical benefits.
A recent animal study addressed the issue of hyper-
glycemia and its putative effects on osseointegration.
Ajami et al modified the nanotopography of dental im-
plants, leading to significantly increased osteoconduc-
tion compared to microsurface topographies.
Esposito et al, in another Cochrane Oral Health
Group review, tried to pinpoint the most effective
interventions for treating peri-implantitis around den-
tal implants, suggesting that few current methods
exist to control peri-implantitis but concluding that
no reliable evidence existed to rule out a definitive
treatment.
Balshi et al had retrospectively analyzed factors that
can affect the use of All-on-Four protocol, such as loca-
tion, gender, and implant orientation, but concluded
that these factors are not significant parameters when
formulating this protocol.
Lately, implant placement in fresh extraction sock-
ets has been gaining ground. Lang et al analyzed five
factors that can affect the survival rate and concluded
that only the regimen of antibiotic use affected the sur-
vival rate. Groups that had a course of postoperative
antibiotics fared better. The Cochrane group recently
reported that the use of antibiotics one hour preop-
eratively may reduce the failure of dental implants.
Clinical scenarios, including the ones described
above, need to be further addressed, and more long-
term in vivo studies and research will be needed to
assess the outcomes and the effects of these different
clinical situations on the survival rate of dental im-
plants and the benefit implant treatment offers to the
patients.
Emad W. Estafanous BDS, MSD

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1455

© 2 0 1 3 BY Q UIN TESSEN CE PUBLISHIN G C O , IN C. PRIN TIN G O F T HIS D O CUMEN T IS RESTRIC TED T O PERSO N AL USE O NLY.
N O PART MAY BE REPRO DUCED OR TRA NSMIT TED IN A NY F ORM WIT H O UT WRIT TEN PERMISSIO N FRO M T HE PUBLISHER.
Thematic Abstract Review
Linsen SS, Martini M, Stark H. Long-term results
of endosteal implants following radical oral cancer
surgery with and without adjuvant radiation thera-
py. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:250–258.
The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term sur-
vival of implants and implant-retained prostheses in pa-
tients after ablative surgery of oral cancer with or without
adjunctive radiation therapy. Between 1997 and 2008, 66
patients who had undergone ablative tumor surgery in the
oral cavity were treated with dental implants (n = 262).
Thirty-four patients received radiation therapy in daily frac-
tions of 2 Gy administered for 18 to 30 days. Implants
were inserted in the maxilla (49; 18.7%) or mandible (213;
81.3%), in nonirradiated residual (65; 24.8%) or grafted
bone (44; 16.8%) and in irradiated residual (15.6%) or
grafted bone (39; 14.9%). Seventeen fixed prostheses
and 53 removable dentures (34 bar attachments, 9 tele-
scopic, and 10 ball-retained dentures) were inserted. The
mean follow-up after implant insertion was 47.99 (±34.31)
months (range 12 to 140 months). The overall 1-, 5-, and
10-year survival rates of all implants were 96.6%, 96.6%,
and 86.9%, respectively. Fourteen implants were lost in
nine patients (5.3% of all implants); eight implants were
primary losses, and five secondary losses because of
an operation of tumor recurrence. There was no signifi-
cantly lower implant survival for implants inserted into ir-
radiated bone (P = .302), bone and/or soft-tissue grafts
(P = .436), and maxilla or mandible (P = .563). All prosthet-
ic restorations in patients without tumor recurrence could
be maintained during the observation period. It was con-
cluded that implant survival is not significantly influenced
by radiation therapy, grafts (bone and/or soft tissue), or
location (maxilla or mandible). However, implants placed
in irradiated bone exhibit a higher failure rate during the
healing period than those placed in nonirradiated bone. No
superstructure was particularly favorable. Osseointegrated
implants can be used successfully in patients with prior
history of ablative surgery with and without additional ra-
diation therapy.
Correspondence to: sabinelinsen@web.de
Claudy MP, Miguens SA Jr, Celeste RK, Camara
Parente R, Hernandez PA, da Silva AN Jr. Time in-
terval after radiotherapy and dental implant failure:
Systematic review of observational studies and meta-
analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013 June 7.
doi: 10.1111/cid.12096 [epub ahead of print].
Typically, dental implants are placed in irradiated bone after
a delay that exceeds 6 months, but it is not known whether
longer delays are beneficial. The purpose of the study is to
review the literature comparing the failure rate of dental im-
plants placed in irradiated bone between 6 and 12 months
and after 12 months from the cessation of radiotherapy.
Four electronic databases were searched for articles pub-
lished until February 2013 without language restriction:
Lilacs, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register
of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers independently assessed
the eligibility criteria and extracted data. Fixed effect
1456 Volume 28, Number 6, 2013
© 2 0 1 3 BY Q UIN TESSEN CE PUBLISHIN G C O , IN C. PRIN TIN G O F T HIS D O CUMEN T IS RESTRIC TED T O PERSO N AL USE O NLY.
N O PART MAY BE REPRO DUCED OR TRA NSMIT TED IN A NY F ORM WIT H O UT WRIT TEN PERMISSIO N FRO M T HE PUBLISHER.
meta-analysis was performed. Overall, 3,749 observa-
tional studies were identified. After the screening of titles
and abstracts, 236 publications were selected, and 10
were included in the final analysis. The pooled relative risk
(RR) of failure was RRpooled = 1.34 (95% confidence inter-
val [CI]: 1.01-1.79), higher in individuals who had dental
implants placed between 6 and 12 months after receiv-
ing radiotherapy. I2 indicated nearly 21% heterogeneity
(P = .25). Egger’s test indicated no evidence of publica-
tion bias (P = .62); however, the removal of one study sig-
nificantly affected the overall RR (RRpooled = 1.08, 95% CI:
0.77–1.52). It was concluded that placing implants in bone
within a period shorter than 12 months after radiotherapy
may result in a higher risk of failure; however, additional
evidence from clinical trials is needed to verify this risk.
Correspondence to: mpclaudy@gmail.com
Esposito M, Worthington HV. Interventions for re-
placing missing teeth: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
for irradiated patients who require dental implants.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD003603.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003603.pub3.
Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth.
Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those who
have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and
neck region may particularly benefit from reconstruction
with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been
advocated to improve the success of implant treatment
in patients who have undergone radiotherapy, but this re-
mains a controversial issue. The objective of this study
is to compare the success, morbidity, patient satisfaction,
and cost-effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried
out with and without HBO in irradiated patients. The fol-
lowing electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane
Oral Health Group’s Trials Register (to June 17, 2013), the
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)
(The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID
(1946 to June 17, 2013), and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to
June 17, 2013). No restrictions were placed on the lan-
guage or date of publication when searching the electron-
ic databases. We checked the bibliographies of relevant
clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the
searched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to more than 55
oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts
and we made a request on an internet discussion group
in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. The
selection criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental im-
plants: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the
methodological quality of the trials, and data extraction
were conducted in duplicate and independently by two re-
view authors. Results were analyzed using random-effects
models to determine mean differences for continuous out-
comes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95%
confidence intervals. Only one RCT, providing very low qual-
ity evidence, was identified and included. Thirteen patients
received HBO therapy while another 13 did not. Two to six

implants were placed in people with fully edentulous man-
dibles to be rehabilitated with bar-retained overdentures.
One year after implant loading, four patients had died from
each group. One patient, treated with HBO, developed an
osteoradionecrosis and lost all implants, so the prosthe-
sis could not be provided. Five patients in the HBO group
had at least one implant failure versus two in the control
group. There were no statistically significant differences
for prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative compli-
cations, and patient satisfaction between the two groups.
The authors concluded that, despite the limited amount of
clinical research available, it appears that HBO therapy in
irradiated patients requiring dental implants may not offer
any appreciable clinical benefits. There is a definite need
for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in
irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials
ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended
by the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
Each clinical center may have limited numbers of patients,
and it is likely that trials will need to be multicentered.
Correspondence to: espositomarco@hotmail.com.
Ajami E, Mahno E, Mendes VC, Bell S, Moineddin R,
Davies JE. Bone healing and the effect of implant
surface topography on osteoconduction in hypergly-
cemia. Acta Biomater 2013 Sept 26. doi: 10.1016/
j.actbio.2013.09.020 [epub ahead of print].
Dental implant failures that occur clinically for unknown
reasons could be related to undiagnosed hyperglycemia.
The exact mechanisms that underlie such failures are not
known, but there is general consensus that bone growth
is compromised in hyperglycemia. Nevertheless, contra-
dictory findings exist related to peri-implant bone healing
in hyperglycemia. We hypothesized that hyperglycemia de-
lays early bone healing by impeding osteoconduction, and
that the compromised implant integration wrought by hy-
perglycemia could be abrogated by using nanotopographi-
cally complex implants. Thus, we undertook two parallel
experiments: an osteotomy model and a bone ingrowth
chamber model. With the osteotomy model, we tracked
temporal bone healing in femora of euglycemic and hyper-
glycemic rats using MicroCT analysis and histology. With
the bone ingrowth chamber model, we used implant sur-
faces of either micro- or nanotopographical complexity and
measured bone-implant contact (BIC) using backscattered
electron imaging in both metabolic groups. Quantitative Mi-
croCT analyses on bone volume, trabecular number, and
trabecular connectivity density provided clear evidence
that bone healing, both reparative trabecular bone forma-
tion and remodeling, was delayed in hyperglycemia, and
the reparative bone volume changed with time between
metabolic groups. Furthermore, fluorochrome labeling
proved evidently less mineralized bone in hyperglycemic
than in euglycemic animals. An increased probability of
osteoconduction was seen on nano- compared to micro-
topographically complex surfaces independent of meta-
bolic groups. The nanotopographically complex surfaces in
hyperglycemia outperformed microtopographically complex
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1457
© 2 0 1 3 BY Q UIN TESSEN CE PUBLISHIN G C O , IN C. PRIN TIN G O F T HIS D O CUMEN T IS RESTRIC TED T O PERSO N AL USE O NLY.
N O PART MAY BE REPRO DUCED OR TRA NSMIT TED IN A NY F ORM WIT H O UT WRIT TEN PERMISSIO N FRO M T HE PUBLISHER.
Thematic Abstract Review
surfaces in euglycemic animals. In conclusion, the compro-
mised implant integration in hyperglycemia is abrogated by
the addition of nanotopographic features to an underlying
microtopographically complex implant surface.
Correspondence to: jed.davies@utoronto.ca
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV. Treat-
ment of peri-implantitis: What interventions are
effective? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral
Implantol 2012;5(suppl):S21–41.
The purpose of this study was to identify the most effective
interventions for treating peri-implantitis around osseoin-
tegrated oral implants. The Cochrane Oral Health Group’s
Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were
searched up to June 9, 2011 for randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) comparing agents or interventions for treat-
ing peri-implantitis around oral implants. Primary outcome
measures were implant failure, radiographic marginal bone
level change, complications and side effects, and recur-
rence of peri-implantitis. Screening of eligible studies, as-
sessment of the methodological quality of the trials, and
data extraction were conducted in duplicate and indepen-
dently by two review authors. The statistical unit was the
patient and not the implant unless the clustering of the
implants within the patients had been taken into account.
Results were expressed as random-effects models using
mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios
for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals
(CI). Fifteen eligible trials were identified, but six were ex-
cluded. The following interventions were compared in the
nine included studies: different nonsurgical interventions
(five trials), adjunctive treatments to nonsurgical interven-
tions (one trial), different surgical interventions (two trials),
and adjunctive treatments to surgical interventions (one
trial). Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 4 years. No study
was judged to be at low risk of bias. Statistically significant
differences were observed in two small single trials judged
to be at unclear or high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunc-
tive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who
lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed im-
proved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm
(95% CI 0.40 to 0.82) and reduced probing pockets depths
(PPD) of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). After 4 years,
patients with peri-implant infrabony defects >3 mm treated
with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers showed an improve-
ment of 1.4 mm for PAL (95% CI 0.24 to 2.56) and PPD
(95% CI 0.81 to 1.99) compared to patients treated with a
nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. It was concluded that there
is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most
effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis. This is
not to say that currently used interventions are not effec-
tive. A single small trial at unclear risk of bias showed that
the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingi-
val debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional
improvement in PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in pa-
tients affected by severe forms of peri-implantitis. Another
small single trial at high risk of bias showed that after 4
years, improved PAL and PPD of approximately 1.4 mm
Thematic Abstract Review
were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barri-
ers compared to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in peri-
implant infrabony defects. There is no evidence from four
trials that the more complex and expensive therapies were
more beneficial than the control therapies, which basically
consisted of simple subgingival mechanical debridement.
Follow-up longer than 1 year suggested recurrence of peri-
implantitis in up to 100% of the treated cases for some of
the tested interventions. As this can be a chronic disease,
re-treatment may be necessary. Larger well-designed RCTs
with follow-ups longer than 1 year are needed.
Correspondence to: espositomarco@hotmail.com
Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, Balshi SF.
A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark Sys-
tem implants following the All-on-Four™ protocol.
J Prosthodont 2013 Jul 25. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12089
[epub ahead of print].
The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate
implant survival rates in patients treated with the All-on-
Four protocol according to edentulous jaws, gender, and
implant orientation (tilted vs. axial). All Brånemark System
implants placed in patients following the All-on-Four proto-
col in a single private practice were separated into multiple
classifications (maxilla vs. mandible; male vs. female; tilt-
ed vs. axial) by retrospective patient chart review. Inclusion
criteria consisted of any Brånemark System implant placed
with the All-on-Four protocol from the clinical inception (May
2005) until December 2011. Life tables were constructed
to determine cumulative implant survival rates (CSR). The
arches, genders, and implant orientations were statistically
compared with ANOVA. One hundred fifty-two patients, com-
prising 200 arches (800 implants) from May 2005 until
December 2011, were included in the study. Overall im-
plant CSR was 97.3% (778 of 800). Two hundred eighty-
nine of 300 maxillary implants and 489 of 500 mandibular
implants survived, for CSRs of 96.3% and 97.8%, respec-
tively. In male patients, 251 of 256 implants (98.1%) re-
main in function, while 527 of 544 implants (96.9%) in
female patients survived. Regarding implant orientation,
389 of 400 tilted implants and 389 of 400 axial implants
osseointegrated, for identical CSRs of 97.3%. All compari-
sons were found to be statistically insignificant. The pros-
thesis survival rate was 99.0%. The results from this study
suggest that edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orienta-
tion are not significant parameters when formulating an
All-on-Four treatment plan. The high CSRs for each variable
analyzed demonstrate the All-on-Four treatment as a viable
alternative to more extensive protocols for rehabilitating
the edentulous maxilla or mandible.
Correspondence to: balshi2@aol.com
Lang NP, Pun L, Lau KY, Li KY, Wong MC. A sys-
tematic review on survival and success rates of
implants placed immediately into fresh extraction
sockets after at least 1 year. Clin Oral Implants Res
2012;23(suppl 5):39–66.
Immediate implant placement has gained popularity be-
1458 Volume 28, Number 6, 2013
© 2 0 1 3 BY Q UIN TESSEN CE PUBLISHIN G C O , IN C. PRIN TIN G O F T HIS D O CUMEN T IS RESTRIC TED T O PERSO N AL USE O NLY.
N O PART MAY BE REPRO DUCED OR TRA NSMIT TED IN A NY F ORM WIT H O UT WRIT TEN PERMISSIO N FRO M T HE PUBLISHER.
cause it may reduce treatment time, number of surgeries,
and postextraction bone loss. However, this is potentially
challenged by inadequate keratinized mucosa for flap ad-
aptation and difficulties in achieving primary stability. More-
over, it has been proven that postextraction bone loss is
an inevitable biological process, which affects treatment
outcomes. The objectives of this study were to estimate
survival and success rates of implants and the implant-
supported prostheses; the prevalence of biological, tech-
nical, and esthetic complications; and the magnitude of
soft and hard tissue changes following implant placement
immediately into fresh extraction sockets. An electronic
search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane Library
from 1991 to July 2010 was performed to include prospec-
tive studies on immediate implants with a mean follow-up
time of at least 1 year. The survival rates were computed
using the STATA statistical software. Weighted means of
soft and hard tissue changes were obtained by the inverse
variance method. A total of 46 prospective studies, with
a mean follow-up time of 2.08 years, were included. The
annual failure rate of immediate implants was 0.82% (95%
CI: 0.48–1.39%), translating into the 2-year survival rate
of 98.4% (97.3–99%). Among the five factors analyzed
(reasons for extraction, antibiotic use, position of implant
[anterior vs posterior, maxilla vs mandible], type of load-
ing), only the regimen of antibiotic use affected the sur-
vival rate significantly. Lower failure rates were found in
groups that were provided with a course of postoperative
antibiotics. The success of implant therapy was difficult
to assess due to scarce reporting on biological, technical,
and esthetic complications. Soft tissue changes occurred
mostly in the first 3 months after the provision of restora-
tion, and then stabilized toward end of the first year. Mar-
ginal bone loss predominantly took place in the first year
after implant placement, with a magnitude generally less
than 1 mm. Controversy on hard tissue preservation with
platform-switching technique remained unsolved. It was
concluded that despite the high survival rate observed,
more long-term studies are necessary to determine the
success of implant treatment provided immediately after
tooth extraction. Special attention has to be given to es-
thetic outcomes.
Correspondence to: iriskylau@hotmail.com
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV. Inter-
ventions for replacing missing teeth: Antibiotics at
dental implant placement to prevent complications.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD004152.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004152.pub4.
Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial con-
tamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomate-
rials are difficult to treat, and almost all infected implants
have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in
surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious
endocarditis; with reduced host response; when surgery
is performed in infected sites; in cases of extensive and
prolonged surgical interventions; and when large foreign
materials are implanted. A variety of prophylactic systemic

antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimize in-
fections after dental implant placement. More recent pro-
tocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics
have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the ad-
ministration of antibiotics, and can range from diarrhea to
life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern
associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the
selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of pro-
phylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial.
The objectives of this study were to assess the beneficial
or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at
dental implant placement versus no antibiotic or placebo
administration and, if antibiotics are beneficial, to deter-
mine which type, dosage, and duration is the most effec-
tive. The following electronic databases were searched:
the Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register (to June
17, 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5),
MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to June 17, 2013), and EMBASE
via OVID (1980 to June 17, 2013). There were no language
or date restrictions placed on the searches of the elec-
tronic databases. The selection criteria was randomized
controlled clinical trials (RCTs), with a follow-up of at least
3 months, that compared the administration of various
prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to
people undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome
measures included prosthesis failures, implant failures,
postoperative infections, and adverse events (gastrointes-
tinal, hypersensitivity, etc). Screening of eligible studies,
assessment of the risk of bias of the trials, and data ex-
traction were conducted in duplicate and independently by
two review authors. Results were expressed as risk ratios
(RRs) using a random-effects model for dichotomous out-
comes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity,
including both clinical and methodological factors, was to
be investigated. Six RCTs with 1,162 participants were in-
cluded: Three trials compared 2 g of preoperative amoxicil-
lin versus placebo (927 participants), one compared 3 g
of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (55 partici-
pants), one compared 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus
500 mg four times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics
(80 participants), and one compared four groups: (1) 2 g of
preoperative amoxicillin; (2) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin
plus 1 g twice a day for 7 days; (3) 1 g of postoperative
amoxicillin twice a day for 7 days; and (4) no antibiotics
(100 participants). The overall body of evidence was con-
sidered to be of moderate quality. The meta-analyses of the
six trials showed a statistically significant higher number
of participants experiencing implant failures in the group
not receiving antibiotics (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67,
P value .002, heterogeneity: Tau(2) 0.00; Chi(2) 2.87,
df = 5 (P value .57); I(2) 0%). The number needed to treat
for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent
one person having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 14 to
100), based on an implant failure rate of 6% in participants
not receiving antibiotics. There was borderline statistical
significance for prosthesis failures (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19
to 1.00), with no statistically significant differences for
© 2 0 1 3 BY Q UIN TESSEN CE PUBLISHIN G C O , IN C. PRIN TIN G O F T HIS D O CUMEN T IS RESTRIC TED T O PERSO N AL USE O NLY.
N O PART MAY BE REPRO DUCED OR TRA NSMIT TED IN A NY F ORM WIT H O UT WRIT TEN PERMISSIO N FRO M T HE PUBLISHER.
Thematic Abstract Review
infections (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35), or adverse
events (RR 1; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.85) (only two minor ad-
verse events were recorded, one in the placebo group).
No conclusive information can be derived from the only
trial that compared three different durations of antibiotic
prophylaxis since no event (implant/prosthesis failures,
infections, or adverse events) occurred in any of the 25
participants included in each study group. There were no
trials that evaluated different antibiotics or different anti-
biotic dosages. It was concluded that scientific evidence
suggests that, in general, antibiotics are beneficial for re-
ducing failure of dental implants placed in ordinary condi-
tions. Specifically, 2 g or 3 g of amoxicillin given orally, as a
single administration, one hour preoperatively significantly
reduces failure of dental implants. No significant adverse
events were reported. It might be sensible to suggest the
use of a single dose of 2 g prophylactic amoxicillin prior to
dental implant placement. It is still unknown whether post-
operative antibiotics are beneficial, and which antibiotic is
the most effective.
Correspondence to: espositomarco@hotmail.com.
DIRECTOR OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY
Department of Periodontology
and Implant Dentistry
NYU COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY
New York University College of Dentistry is one of the most dynamic
and robust dental education and research institutions in the world. The
Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry is one of the largest
of its kind, educating students from both the United States and abroad.
The Implant Dentistry Program, an integral component of the
Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry is seeking a
full-time Director at the faculty rank of Assistant Professor or above.
The Director, along with the Department Chairperson, will be given
significant resources to redefine the mission of the Program in its
continued quest toward excellence in its educational, patient care and
research programs.
Responsibilities will include leading and administering the Division of
Implant Dentistry, didactic and clinical teaching in pre and post doctoral
dental programs, patient care and service. The successful candidate will
be proficient in all phases of surgical and prosthetic implant dentistry.
In addition, he/she will be a dynamic educator with both significant
administrative and research experience. Candidates must possess a
dental degree and be eligible for either a NYS license or a restricted
NYS faculty license to practice dentistry. Advanced specialty training is
highly desirable. Intramural and extramural practice opportunities are
available, dependent upon licensure.
NYU offers an excellent benefits package. Salary and academic rank
will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Applicants
should send a letter of intent and curriculum vitae no later than
December 15, 2013 to: Dr. Steven P. Engebretson, Chair, Department
of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, New York University College
of Dentistry, 345 East 24th Street, Suite 3W, New York, NY 10010.
NYU is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1459