Prophylactic antibiotic use is common in dogs and cats presenting for procedures at veterinary referral dental practices.

The improvement of antibiotic rational use in China was studied by usage analysis of combination antibiotic therapy for type I incisions in 244 hospitals. Five kinds of hospitals, including general hospital, maternity hospital, children's hospital, stomatological hospital and cancer hospital, from 30 provinces were surveyed. A systematic random sampling strategy was employed to select outpatient prescriptions and inpatient cases in 2011 and 2012. A total of 29 280 outpatient prescriptions and 73 200 inpatient cases from 244 hospitals in each year were analyzed. Data were collected with regards to the implementation of the national antibiotic stewardship program (NASP), the overall usage and the prophylactic use of antibiotic for type I incisions. Univariate analysis was used for microbiological diagnosis rate before antimicrobial therapy, prophylactic use of antibiotics for type I incision operation, and so on. For multivariate analysis, the use of antibiotics was dichotomized according to the guidelines, and entered as binary values into logistic regression analysis. The results were compared with the corresponding criteria given by the guidelines of this campaign. The antibiotic stewardship in China was effective in that more than 80% of each kind of hospitals achieved the criteria of recommended antibiotics varieties. Hospital type appeared to be a factor statistically associated with stewardship outcome. The prophylactic use of antibiotics on type I incision operations decreased by 16.22% (P<0.05). The usage of combination antibiotic therapy for type I incisions was also decreased. Region and bed size were the main determinants on surgical prophylaxis for type I incision. This national analysis of hospitals on antibiotic use and stewardship allows relevant comparisons for bench marking. More efforts addressing the root cause of antibiotics abuse would continue to improve the rational use of antibiotics in China.

There has been renewal of interest in the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To determine whether or not regular treatment of COPD patients with prophylactic antibiotics reduces exacerbations or affects quality of life. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was August 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic antibiotics with placebo in patients with COPD. We used the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted and analysed by two independent review authors. Seven RCTs involving 3170 patients were included in this systematic review. All studies were published between 2001 and 2011. Five studies were of continuous antibiotics and two studies were of intermittent antibiotic prophylaxis (termed 'pulsed' for this review). The antibiotics investigated were azithromycin, erythromycin, clarithromycin and moxifloxacin. Azithromycin, erythromycin and clarithromycin are macrolides while moxifloxacin is a fourth-generation synthetic fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent. The study duration varied from three months to 36 months and all used intention-to-treat analysis. Most of the results were of moderate quality. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, and we did not downgrade the quality of evidence for risk of bias.The trials recruited participants with a mean age of 66 years and with at least a moderate severity of COPD. Three trials included participants with frequent exacerbations and two trials recruited participants requiring systemic steroids or antibiotics, or both, or who were at the end stage of their disease and required oxygen.The primary outcomes for this review were the number of exacerbations and quality of life.With use of continuous prophylactic antibiotics the number of patients experiencing an exacerbation was reduced (odds ratio (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.77, 3 studies, 1262 participants, high quality). This represented a reduction from 69% of participants in the control group compared to 54% in the treatment group (95% CI 46% to 63%) and the number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation (NNTb) was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 18). The frequency of exacerbations was also reduced with continuous prophylactic antibiotic treatment (rate ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91).Use of pulsed antibiotic treatment showed a non-significant reduction in the number of people with exacerbations (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.09, 1 study, 1149 participants, moderate quality) and the test for interaction showed that this result was significantly different from the effect on exacerbations with continuous antibiotics.There was a statistically significant improvement in quality of life with both continuous and pulsed antibiotic treatment but this was smaller than the four unit improvement that is regarded as being clinically significant (MD -1.78; 95% CI -2.95 to -0.61, 2 studies, 1962 participants, moderate quality).Neither pulsed nor continuous antibiotics showed a significant effect on the secondary outcomes of frequency of hospital admissions, change in lung function, serious adverse events or all-cause mortality (moderate quality evidence).The adverse events that were recorded varied among the trials depending on the different antibiotics used. Azithromycin was associated with a significant hearing loss in the treatment group. The moxifloxacin pulsed study reported a significantly higher number of adverse events in the treatment arm due to the marked increase in gastrointestinal adverse events (P < 0.001). Some adverse events that led to drug discontinuation, such as development of long QTc or tinnitus, were not significantly more frequent in the treatment group than the placebo group but pose important considerations in clinical practice.The development of antibiotic resistance in the community is of major concern. One study found newly colonised patients to have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. Patients colonised with moxifloxacin-sensitive pseudomonas at initiation of therapy rapidly became resistant with the quinolone treatment. Use of continuous prophylactic antibiotics results in a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations in COPD patients. All trials of continuous antibiotics used macrolides hence the noted benefit applies only to the use of continuous macrolide antibiotics. The impact of pulsed antibiotics remains uncertain and requires further research.The trials in this review included patients who were frequent exacerbators and needed treatment with antibiotics or systemic steroids, or who were on supplemental oxygen. There were also older individuals with a mean age of 66 years. The results of these trials apply only to the group of patients who were studied in these trials and may not be generalisable to other groups.Because of concerns about antibiotic resistance and specific adverse effects, consideration of prophylactic antibiotic use should be mindful of the balance between benefits to individual patients and the potential harms to society created by antibiotic overuse.

The demand for animal protein is a fact of relevance for the production systems, especially pork, the most consumed animal protein source in the world. In this sense to ensure the efficient production during the pigs raising the use of Prophylactic Antibiotics (PA) is a common practice, but there is a great potential for the occurrence of resistance to antibiotics. However, the use of PA may not be necessary for certain groups of pigs for example with high sanitary status within the production system. The study lasted for 76 days. Seventy-two barrows at 63 days of age with initial weight of 26.11±3.55 kg were used. Two treatments were performed, without the use of prophylactic antibiotics or with the use for five days, being given at 63 days of age with Doxycycline and at 105 days of age with Tiamulin. PA use worsened ADG (p = 0.035) by 5.0% and body weight by 3.0% (p = 0.039) of pigs at 105 days of age when compared to pigs that did not receive Doxycycline. After the second use of PA the pigs at 117 days of age which received Tiamulin presented better ADG of 7.0% (p = 0.035) and a greater body weight of 1.2% (p = 0.038) compared to control group. The animals of the control group presented 6.0% greater loin depth (p = 0.023) than the animals that received the PA, however pigs of the PA group presented greater hot carcass weight of 0.6% (p = 0.005) and greater carcass compactness of 2.4% (p = 0.004) compared to the control group. The use of PA should be studied with caution and in a holistic way, considering the sanitary characteristics of management to verify if its use is really justified, as observed in the present study if used in inopportune moments its use can impair the performance of the pigs.

Introduction: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a bacterial infection of the heart's inner lining. Substantial evidence supports a link between oral health and IE, with the oral microbiome impacting multiple aspects of IE, including pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality rates. Objective: It was to conduct a concise systematic review of the major guidelines by the American Heart Association and work related to bacterial resistance in periodontal diseases and infective endocarditis. Methods: The PRISMA Platform systematic review rules were followed. The search was carried out from February to March 2025 in the Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Scielo, and Google Scholar databases. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results and Conclusion: A total of 105 articles were found, and 27 articles were evaluated in full and 14 were included and developed in the present concise systematic review study. Considering the Cochrane tool for risk of bias, the overall assessment resulted in 28 studies with a high risk of bias and 20 studies that did not meet GRADE and AMSTAR-2. Most studies showed homogeneity in their results, with X2=74.7%&gt;50%. It was concluded that there is a significant association between periodontitis and increased cardiovascular risk, promoting integrated health approaches. Infective endocarditis, although relatively uncommon, is a disease that causes substantial morbidity and mortality. Although advances in diagnosis and treatment have improved antimicrobials, prevention is still an important factor. Protocols for the use of prophylactic antibiotics have been used in medical and dental procedures likely to generate the development of the disease in high-risk patients. Thus, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with a reduced risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures.

Introduction: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a bacterial infection of the heart's inner lining. Substantial evidence supports a link between oral health and IE, with the oral microbiome impacting multiple aspects of IE, including pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality rates. Objective: It was to conduct a concise systematic review of the major guidelines by the American Heart Association and work related to bacterial resistance in periodontal diseases and infective endocarditis. Methods: The PRISMA Platform systematic review rules were followed. The search was carried out from February to March 2025 in the Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Scielo, and Google Scholar databases. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results and Conclusion: A total of 105 articles were found, and 27 articles were evaluated in full and 14 were included and developed in the present concise systematic review study. Considering the Cochrane tool for risk of bias, the overall assessment resulted in 28 studies with a high risk of bias and 20 studies that did not meet GRADE and AMSTAR-2. Most studies showed homogeneity in their results, with X2=74.7%&gt;50%. It was concluded that there is a significant association between periodontitis and increased cardiovascular risk, promoting integrated health approaches. Infective endocarditis, although relatively uncommon, is a disease that causes substantial morbidity and mortality. Although advances in diagnosis and treatment have improved antimicrobials, prevention is still an important factor. Protocols for the use of prophylactic antibiotics have been used in medical and dental procedures likely to generate the development of the disease in high-risk patients. Thus, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with a reduced risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures.

The tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) surgical procedure is well established in the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence. The operation is based on a midurethral Prolene tape support. TVT is accepted as an easy-to-learn and safe minimally invasive surgical technique. Postoperative infections have been described following other surgical methods for correcting female urinary stress incontinence. Hence, prophylactic antibiotics are commonly also used in TVT to minimise this surgical complication. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the occurrence of infection in relation to TVT and the need for prophylactic antibiotics. Out of 524 patients undergoing TVT and followed for up to 68 months, only three suffered surgical field infections within the postoperative period. The three infective processes developed with a background of retropubic haematoma formation. The literature is reviewed, and the justification for prophylactic antibiotics in the TVT operation is discussed.

Purpose: Owing to persistent controversy regarding the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TCAE) and the availability of several new studies published on the subject, we conducted an up-to-date meta-analysis to provide the best current evidence. The aim of the article is to assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing the incidence of infectious complications after TCAE. Materials and methods: PubMed, Google scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI and Wan-Fang database were searched through October 2018 for randomized or non-randomized controlled trials for comparing the use of prophylactic antibiotics in TACE with placebo or no antibiotics were included in the review. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using fixed-effects and random-effects models. Results: Eight studies with a total number of 1672 of procedures were included in the meta-analysis. We found no evidence of publication bias or heterogeneity among the studies. Antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the incidence of infectious complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 1.24, p=0.464) and the rate of patients developing fever (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19, p=0.595). When the analyses were stratified into subgroups, there was no evidence that study design substantially influenced the estimate of effects. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. Conclusion: Although current evidence demonstrates that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for TACE may not be necessary, more evidence from advanced multi-center studies is needed to provide instruction for the use of prophylactic antibiotics.

Intubation is associated with bacterial colonisation of the respiratory tract and, therefore, may increase the risk of acquiring an infection. The infection may prolong the need for mechanical ventilation and increase the risk of chronic lung disease. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated for all mechanically ventilated newborns in order to reduce the risk of colonisation and the acquisition of infection. However, there is the possibility that the harm this may cause might outweigh the benefit. To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics on mortality and morbidity in intubated, ventilated newborn infants who are not known to have infection. In separate comparisons, two different policies regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in intubated, ventilated infants were reviewed: 1) among infants who have been intubated for mechanical ventilation, a policy of prophylactic antibiotics for the duration of intubation versus placebo or no treatment 2) among intubated, ventilated infants who have been started on antibiotics at the time of intubation but whose initial cultures to rule out sepsis were negative, a policy of continuing versus discontinuing prophylactic antibiotics. MEDLINE (January 1950 to March 2007), CINAHL (1982 to March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), the Cochrane Neonatal Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles were searched. Randomised controlled trials of sufficient quality in which mechanically ventilated newborn infants are randomised to receive prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Two studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. One was of insufficient quality to draw any meaningful conclusions. The other was of fair quality and found no significant differences between treatment and control groups in any of the reported outcomes, however, the rates of septicaemia were not reported. There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics when starting mechanical ventilation in newborn infants, or to support or refute continuing antibiotics once initial cultures have ruled out infection in mechanically ventilated newborn infants.

The evidence base for the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental practice

Ventriculostomy-associated infections: Incidence and risk factors

BackgroundNational guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) recommend against antibiotic prophylaxis following wound closure for clean and clean-contaminated surgical procedures. Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis can lead to antibiotic resistance and adverse drug events without reducing SSI rates. The objective was to reduce the rate of antibiotic prophylaxis following surgical incision closure for specified procedures in the Divisions of Neurosurgery (NRS), Otolaryngology (OTO), and General Surgery (GS) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).MethodsWe identified all NRS, OTO, and GS procedures conducted at CHOP from July 1, 2016 to June 20, 2017. Collaborative meetings between surgical quality improvement team leads and the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) were convened to identify procedures most suitable for the intervention, including Chiari decompressions and tethered cord repair (NRS); tympanoplasty and tracheostomy (OTO); and laparoscopic and thoracoscopic procedures (GS). The intervention, started in March 2018, included (1) education of surgeons on perioperative prescribing guidelines, (2) order set modification, and (3) individualized monthly audit with feedback reports of inappropriate postoperative prescribing (via email copying all surgeons within the division). We monitored rates utilizing SPC charts of postoperative antibiotic use (defined as administration within 24 hours of procedure end) and evaluated SSI rates pre and post-intervention with a Poisson regression.ResultsFollowing the intervention, postoperative antibiotic use reached special cause resulting in a mean decline for laparoscopy (19.6% to 11.7%), thoracoscopy (35.6% to 17.9%), tympanoplasty (90.5% to 11.4%), tethered cord repair (95% to 25.5%), and Chiari decompression (97% to 45.9%). There was no mean shift in postoperative antibiotic use for tracheostomy (25.5%). 30-day SSI rates did not change pre- and post-intervention (P = 0.36).ConclusionA quality improvement initiative conducted to implement national guidelines recommending against postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis showed a significant reduction in postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis without a concomitant rise in SSI rates.DisclosuresAll authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Systemic antibiotics and antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems are often used to prevent shunt infection. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of either prophylactic systemic antibiotics or antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems for preventing infection in patients who underwent surgical introduction of intracranial ventricular shunts. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the meeting proceedings from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and from the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, until June 2005. Selection criteria We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the use of prophylactic antibiotics (either systemic or antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems) in intracranial ventricular shunt procedures with placebo or no antibiotics. Data collection and analysis Two authors appraised quality and extracted data independently. Main results We included seventeen trials with overall 2134 participants. We performed two separate meta-analyses: one that evaluated the use of systemic prophylactic antibiotics and another that evaluated the use of antibiotic-impregnated systems. All studies included shunt infection in their primary outcome. We could not analyse all-cause mortality regarding systemic antibiotics due to lack of data. No significant differences were found (odds ratio (OR): 1.47, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.83 to 2.62) for this outcome regarding the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters compared with standard ones. The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters were associated with a decrease in shunt infection (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.74 and OR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.55 respectively). We found no significant benefit for shunt revision in both meta-analyses that evaluated systemic antibiotics and impregnated-shunt systems. We found no significant differences between the subgroups evaluated: type of shunt (internal/external, ventriculoperitoneal/ventriculoatrial), age and duration of the administration of antibiotics. Authors' conclusions We could demonstrate a benefit of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for the first 24 hours postoperatively to prevent shunt infection, regardless of the patient's age and the type of internal shunt used. The benefit of its use after this period remains uncertain. However this data derives from the rate of shunt infection, which is an intermediary outcome. Future trials should evaluate the effectiveness of different regimens of systemic antibiotics rather than placebo, and should include all-cause mortality, shunt revision and adverse events as additional outcomes. Evidence suggests that antibiotic-impregnated catheters reduce the incidence of shunt infection although more well-designed clinical trials testing the effect of antibiotic-impregnated shunts are required to confirm their net benefit.

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials 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 minimise infections after dental implant placement. More recent protocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the administration of antibiotics, and can range from diarrhoea 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 prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. 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 determine which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). There were no language or date restrictions placed on the searches of the electronic databases. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least three 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 (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc). Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) using a random-effects model for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity, including both clinical and methodological factors, was to be investigated. Six RCTs with 1162 participants were included: three trials compared 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 participants), one compared 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (55 participants), one compared 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg four times a day for two 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 seven days; (3) 1 g of postoperative amoxicillin twice a day for seven days, and (4) no antibiotics (100 participants). The overall body of evidence was considered 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 0.002, heterogeneity: Tau(2) 0.00; Chi(2) 2.87, df = 5 (P value 0.57); 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 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 adverse 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 antibiotic dosages. Scientific evidence suggests that, in general, antibiotics are beneficial for reducing failure of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. 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 postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which antibiotic is the most effective.

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials 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, for patients 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. To minimize infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea 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 prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and, if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 9th January 2008. Several dental journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc.). Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. Two RCTs were identified: one comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (316 patients) and the other comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg 4 times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the two trials showed a statistically significant higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: RR = 0.22 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.86). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 13 to 100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 6% in patients not receiving antibiotics. The other outcomes were not statistically significant, and only two minor adverse events were recorded, one of which in the placebo group. There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 hour preoperatively significantly reduce failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. It remains unclear whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic. It might be recommendable to suggest the use of one dose of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental implant placement.

The average age of patients presenting for total joint arthroplasty is decreasing. The number of primary and revision arthroplasty procedures performed in the UK, Europe and USA is increasing annually. As number of procedures performed increases, the life expectancy of our patients and therefore the in vivo duration of prosthetic joints increase, and the potential for complications such as infection increases. One potential source for this is bacterial dissemination during dental surgery. Many attempts have been made to address this issue in the form of national guidelines, but there is no clear consensus on antibiotic prophylaxis before these procedures in order to decrease the risk of prosthetic joint infection. This continues to be an area of indecision and uncertainty resulting in patients having delays in their treatment while decisions are made by oral and orthopaedic surgeons about prophylactic antibiotic use. This article reviews the existing national guidelines, highlighting the current views and issues surrounding this subject, and a critical appraisal of current evidence for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in this patient population is presented. We will also review the response in literature to the 2009 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons information statement release on antibiotic prophylaxis in joint arthroplasty patients undergoing dental procedures.