Antibiotic Prescribing Habits of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in Conjunction With Routine Dental Implant Placement

PURPOSE

Although various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimize failure after dental implant placement, the role of antibiotics in implant dentistry is still controversial. The purpose of the present survey was to determine the current antibiotic prescribing habits of oral and maxillofacial surgeons in conjunction with routine dental implant placement to determine whether any consensus has been reached among such practitioners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic survey was sent by electronic mail to all members of the American College of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The questions asked were related to whether antibiotics were routinely prescribed either pre- or postoperatively during routine dental implant placement, and, if so, what antibiotics, dosage, frequency, and duration were used. The survey participants were also asked to specify whether they were in solo private practice, group private practice, academia, military, or "other." The results were tabulated and analyzed using SAS software. Descriptive statistics and χ(2) analyses were used.

RESULTS

A total of 217 members responded to the survey. Overall, 112 of 217 (51.6%) prescribed antibiotics preoperatively (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.0 to 58.2%) and 152 of 213 (71.4%) prescribed antibiotics postoperatively (95% CI 65.0 to 77.0%) during routine dental implant placement. Also, 72 (34%) indicated that they prescribed antibiotics both pre- and postoperatively. The most common preoperative regimen used was amoxicillin 2 g given 1 hour before the procedure (32%, n = 36). The most common postoperative regimen used was amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times daily for 5 days (53%, n = 81).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no consensus among oral and maxillofacial surgeons regarding the use of antibiotics in association with routine dental implant placement, the type of regimen to use, or whether such use is even effective in preventing early implant loss. Furthermore, most of the antibiotic regimens being used are not in accordance with the recommendations current in the published data.

Comprehensive analysis of phosphorylated proteins of Escherichia coli ribosomes

Phosphorylation of bacterial ribosomal proteins has been known for decades; however, there is still very limited information available on specific locations of the phosphorylation sites in ribosomal proteins and the role they might play in protein synthesis. In this study, we have mapped the specific phosphorylation sites in 24 Escherichia coli ribosomal proteins by tandem mass spectrometry. Detection of phosphorylation was achieved by either phosphorylation specific visualization techniques, ProQ staining, and antibodies for phospho-Ser, Thr, and Tyr; or by mass spectrometry equipped with a capability to detect addition and loss of the phosphate moiety. Enrichment by immobilized metal affinity and/or strong cation exchange chromatography was used to improve the success of detection of the low abundance phosphopeptides. We found the small subunit (30S) proteins S3, S4, S5, S7, S11, S12, S13, S18, and S21 and the large subunit (50S) proteins L1, L2, L3, L5, L6, L7/L12, L13, L14, L16, L18, L19, L21, L22, L28, and L31 to be phosphorylated at one or more residues. Potential roles for each specific site in ribosome function were deduced through careful evaluation of the given phosphorylation sites in 3D-crystal structure models of ribosomes and the previous mutational studies of E. coli ribosomal proteins.