Aim: To study the clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes after surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis, with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics.Materials and Methods: Eighty‐four patients (113 implants) with peri‐implantitis were randomized into three groups (A, amoxicillin and metronidazole; B, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole; or C, placebo). Treatment included resective surgery and implant surface decontamination with adjunctive antibiotics or placebo. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Secondary outcomes were treatment success (defined as PPD ≤ 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP] ≤ 1site, absence of suppuration on probing [SOP] and absence of progressive bone loss of >0.5 mm), changes in BOP/SOP, mucosal recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), bacterial levels and adverse events. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 12 months. The impact of potential prognostic indicators on treatment success was evaluated using multilevel logistic regression analysis.Results: A total of 76 patients (104 implants) completed the study. All groups showed clinical and radiological improvements over time. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups for MBL stability (A = 97%, B = 89%, C = 76%), treatment success (A = 68%, B = 66%, C = 28%) and bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia, favouring antibiotics compared to placebo. Multiple regression identified antibiotic use as potential prognostic indicator for treatment success. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most reported adverse events in the antibiotic groups.Conclusions: Adjunctive systemic antibiotics resulted in additional improvements in MBL stability. However, the potential clinical benefits of antibiotics need to be carefully balanced against the risk of adverse events and possible antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance poses a global threat, which is being acknowledged at several levels, including research, clinical implementation, regulation, as well as by the World Health Organization. In the field of oral health, however, the issue of antibiotic resistances, as well as of accurate diagnosis, is underrepresented. Oral diseases in general were ranked third in terms of expenditures among the EU-28 member states in 2015. Yet, the diagnosis and patient management of oral infections, in particular, still depend primarily on empiric means. On the contrary, on the global scale, the field of medical infections has more readily adopted the integration of molecular-based systems in the diagnostic, patient management, and antibiotic stewardship workflows. In this perspective review, we emphasize the clinical significance of supporting in the future antibiotic resistance screening in dental practice with novel integrated and point-of-care operating tools that can greatly support the rapid, accurate, and efficient administration of oral antibiotics.

The practice of identifying individuals with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus type II or undiagnosed hypertension by medical screening in dental settings has been received positively by both patients and dentistry professionals. This identification has also shown to be cost-effective by achieving savings and health benefits, but no investigation has been made of the attitudes of authorities and organizations. The aim of this study was to describe the views of authorities and organizations. Thirteen authorities and organizations were interviewed of the sample of 20 requested. Seven approached authorities and organizations did not believe it was relevant to participate in the study. The manifest analysis resulted in four categories: medical screening ought to be established in the society; dentistry must have relevant competence to perform medical screening; medical screening requires cooperation between dentistry and health care; and dentistry is not the only context where medical screening could be performed. The latent analysis resulted in an emerging theme: positive to, but uncertain about, the concept of medical screening in dental settings. The spokespersons for the approached authorities and organizations had a positive view of medical screening but the respondents experienced a lack of facts concerning the scientific communities’ position, guidelines and procedures in the topic. Approached authorities and organizations generally had a positive view of medical screening in dental settings but were uncertain about the concept. Further scientific knowledge and guidelines concerning the topic are needed before it can be commonly introduced and additional research on implementation strategies and long-term follow-up of medical screening are needed.