***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND The purpose of this statement is to up date the recommendations by the American Heart Association ( AHA ) for the prevention of infective endocarditis that were last published in 1997 . METHODS AND RESULTS A writing group was appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis , with liaison members representing the American Dental Association , the Infectious Diseases Society of America , and the American Academy of Pediatrics . The writing group review ed input from national and international experts on infective endocarditis . The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and infective endocarditis , in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms that cause infective endocarditis , results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis , and retrospective and prospect i ve studies of prevention of infective endocarditis . MEDLINE data base search es from 1950 to 2006 were done for English- language papers using the following search terms : endocarditis , infective endocarditis , prophylaxis , prevention , antibiotic , antimicrobial , pathogens , organisms , dental , gastrointestinal , genitourinary , streptococcus , enterococcus , staphylococcus , respiratory , dental surgery , pathogenesis , vaccine , immunization , and bacteremia . The reference lists of the identified papers were also search ed . We also search ed the AHA online library . The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used . The paper was subsequently review ed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee . CONCLUSIONS The major changes in the up date d recommendations include the following : ( 1 ) The Committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of infective endocarditis might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100 % effective . ( 2 ) Infective endocarditis prophylaxis for dental procedures is reasonable only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis . ( 3 ) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions , prophylaxis is reasonable for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa . ( 4 ) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of infective endocarditis . ( 5 ) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure . These changes are intended to define more clearly when infective endocarditis prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations Introduction : The study aim ed at evaluating the effect of chlorhexidine ( CHX ) in preventing plaque biofilm ( PB ) formation on healing abutments ( HAs ) in patients rehabilitated with osseointegrated implants . Material s and Methods : Fifty HAs were placed in 34 voluntary patients 1 week after implant surgery ( test group ) . After 7 days , a new set of 50 HAs was placed in the same implant sites and removed 1 week after ( control group ) . During the 2 testing periods , patients were instructed to apply : CHX mouth rinsing twice daily and no brushing ( test ) ; no CHX mouth rinsing and no brushing ( control ) . Scanning electron microscopy and image analysis were blindly used to objective ly quantify PB amount on removed HAs . Results : Median values and interquartile ranges of the percent ratio of titanium surface covered from PB were 0.9 ( 0.1–4.1 ) and 1.2 ( 0.1–11.6 ) for test and control groups , respectively ( P = 0.0275 ) . Conclusions : CHX mouth rinsing significantly limited plaque formation on HAs , being a valid contribution to mechanical brushing in early phases of plaque control on dental implants There are many reasons for dental implant failure , the development of bacteremia is concern for dentists . This is due to the possibility of unfavorable result such as implant loss or the need for re-treatment . In general , antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for high risk patients such as individuals with an immunodeficiency , infectious endocarditis , or previous prosthetic instrumentation . However regarding clinical ly healthy , low and moderate risk individuals the use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial . Another major concern regarding the over prescription of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria . A better underst and ing of the efficacy of prophylactic treatments regarding dental implantation is crucial . Thus a literature review and comparison of survival rates of dental implants with regimens of no , pre or post prophylaxis was performed using systematic literature review using reliable electronic data bases . Retrospective or prospect i ve controlled studies were examined for the influence of preoperative and /or postoperative or no antibiosis on dental implant success rate . Of the 11406 implants used in this literature review , cases with no antibiotics had a 92 % success rate , cases with pre-op antibiotic alone had a 96 % success rate , cases with post-op antibiotic alone had a 97 % success rate and cases with both pre and post-op antibiotic had a success rate of 96 % . Thus , the results from this literature review show a > 90 % success rate when antibiotics are used compared to when they are not used . Thus , no benefit is seen from the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in low and moderate risk dental implant patients . Keywords Dental implants ; Pre-operative prophylactics ; Post-operative prophylactics ; Success The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two antibiotic regimens in reducing  early dental implant failure .  A preoperative single-dose regimen and a 3-day antibiotic course were compared . Eighty subjects needing dental implant placement were r and omly allocated to one of the two antibiotic prophylaxis regimen groups . In the first group , dental implants were placed after the administration of a single preoperative dose of antibiotic ( 1 g of amoxicillin ) ; no postoperative antibiotics were given . In the second group , dental implants were inserted in patients who received the same preoperative dose of antibiotic as the first group , but the antibiotic was then continued postoperatively for 3 days . Patients returned for postoperative evaluation at 3 days , 7 days , and 12 weeks . The surgical sites were assessed for pain , swelling , wound dehiscence , and pus formation . No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups , probably because of the limited number of patients . Although minor complications were seen in a few patients , all implants were successfully osseointegrated . Until a study with a larger population rules definitively on the role of antibiotics in implant surgery , a single dose of antibiotic before implant placement may be sufficient OBJECTIVES This r and omized clinical trial compares the usefulness of pre- and post-operative antibiotics while strict asepsis was followed during periodontal surgery . MATERIAL AND METHODS Two groups of 40 consecutive patients each with fully or partially edentulous jaws were enrolled .  Antibiotics group ( GrAB(+ ) ) : 23 men , mean age 60 , 128 implants , received oral amoxicillin 1 g , 1 h pre-operatively and 2 g for 2 days post-operatively . Non-antibiotics group ( GrAB(- ) ) : 20 men , mean age 57 , 119 implants , received no antibiotics . Bacterial sample s were taken from the peri-oral skin before and at the end of surgery . In 12 patients in each group , sample s were also taken from the nares . A VAS question naire evaluated symptoms of infection/inflammation by both the patient and the periodontologist at suture removal . RESULTS There were no significant differences between both groups , neither for the clinical parameters nor for the microbiota . Staphylococcus aureus was detected in the nares of one patient only . The patients ' subjective perception of post-operative discomfort was significantly smaller in the group receiving antibiotics . Three patients lost one or two implants . CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics do not provide significant advantages concerning post-operative infections in case of proper asepsis . It also does not reduce peri-oral microbial contamination . It does on the other h and reduce post-operative discomfort PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implant placement . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twelve Italian private practice s agreed to participate in this trial , each centre providing 30 patients . One hour prior to implant placement , patients were r and omised , for consumption orally of 2 g amoxicillin or identical placebo tablets . Patients needing bone augmentation procedures were not included . Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures , adverse events and post-operative biological complications . Patients were seen 1 week , 2 weeks and 4 months post-operatively . RESULTS One centre did not deliver any data and 14 patients had to be excluded from the trial for various reasons . One hundred and fifty-eight patients were evaluated in each group and none dropped out at 4 months . Two prostheses and two implants failed in the antibiotics group , compared with four prostheses and nine implants in the placebo group . There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures , implant losses , complications and side effects . CONCLUSIONS No statistically significant differences were observed . However , four times more patients in the placebo group experienced implant failures than in the antibiotic group , and this requires further investigation PURPOSE To evaluate the difference between a single preoperative dose versus an additional two-day postoperative course of oral amoxicillin in patients undergoing conventional dental implant placement . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Two dentists in two different private practice s conducted this study . One hour prior to surgery , patients had to take a single prophylactic antibiotic dose , consisting of 2 g of amoxicillin orally ; after implant placement , patients were r and omly allocated to two different groups : protocol A ( no other antibiotic administration ) and protocol B , ( 1 g of amoxicillin in the evening of the day of surgery and 1 g twice a day for the 2 days after ) . Outcome measures were prosthetic and implant failures , adverse events and early postoperative complications . Patients were followed up to 6 months after functional loading . RESULTS Three hundred and sixty patients were r and omised and treated ( 192 patients in one centre and 168 in the other ) . Five hundred and sixty-seven implants were placed . Protocol A was applied to 180 patients ( 278 implants ) and protocol B also to 180 patients ( 289 implants ) . Data for 17 patients , 14 from protocol A and three from protocol B , were not available . No statistically significant differences were found for the reported outcomes . Two patients of protocol B experienced a prosthetic failure , losing four implants , while no prosthetic failures were reported for protocol A ( P=0.4836 ; difference in proportions=-0.0110 ; 95 % CI : -0.0412 to 0.0119 ) . Five patients ( 3.0 % ) of protocol A lost five implants versus 5 patients ( 2.8 % ) who lost eight implants in protocol B ( P=1.0000 ; difference in proportions=0.0020 ; 95 % CI : -0.0384 to 0.0438 ) . Three adverse events were observed in the total population , all occurring in protocol B ( 1.69 % ) , with no statistically significant differences between the two groups ( P=0.1199 ; difference in proportions=-0.0170 ; 95 % CI : -0.0487 to 0.0059 ) . However , one patient experienced a severe allergic reaction requiring therapy discontinuation and hospital admission . Early postoperative complications occurred in six patients of protocol A and in four patients of protocol B , with no statistically significant differences ( P=0.5170 ; difference in proportions=0.0130 ; 95 % CI : -0.0254 to 0.0568 ) . CONCLUSIONS No statistically significant differences were observed between 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin and an additional 2-day postoperative course , although adverse events were reported only in the additional 2-day postoperative group . Based on these findings , it might be sufficient to routinely administer preoperatively 2 g of amoxicillin to patients undergoing routine dental implant placement procedures rather than administering additional postoperative doses AIM The aim of this prospect i ve cohort study was to evaluate an anti-infective surgical protocol for the treatment of peri-implantitis . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-six implants in 24 partially dentate patients with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis were treated using an anti-infective surgical protocol incorporating open flap debridement and implant surface decontamination , with adjunctive systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole . Treatment outcomes were assessed at 3 , 6 and 12 months . Patient-based statistical analyses using multiple regression analyses were performed . RESULTS There was 100 % survival of treated implants at 12 months . At 3 months , there were statistically significant ( P < 0.01 ) reductions in mean probing depths ( PD ) , Bleeding on Probing ( BoP ) and suppuration . The greater the mean PD at baseline , the greater the PD reduction at 3 months . At 3 months , there 
    Output:
    
In conclusion , antibiotic use in healthy patients for the prophylaxis of surgical infection associated with dental implant placement does not appear to improve clinical outcomes .