Evaluation of the effect of Levofloxacin and Cefalexin derivative antibiotics on Implant Osseointegration in rat tibia
Abstract
Osseointegration refers to the process where an implant firmly and functionally bonds with the bone, establishing a stable union capable of bearing loads without any relative movement between the implant and the surrounding bone tissue. Post- surgery infections that may develop in the surgical area can negatively affect osseointegration, putting the success of the implant at risk. The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of antibiotics derived from levofloxacin and cephalexin on the osseointegration of implants in the tibias of rats. A total of 21 female Sprague Dawley rats were utilized, randomly divided into three equal groups of seven rats each. Titanium implants measuring 2.5 mm in diameter and 4 mm in length were inserted into cavities created in the corticocancellous bone of the metaphyseal region of the right tibias of all animals. In the implant control group (n=7), no additional procedures were performed throughout the two- week experimental period. Subjects in the implant levofloxacin group (n=7) received subcutaneous injections of levofloxacin at a dose of 25 mg/kg, administered three times weekly for two weeks. Similarly, rats in the implant cephalexin group (n=7) were given subcutaneous injections of cephalexin at a dosage of 20 mg/kg, three times per week for two weeks. Two weeks after the operation, the implant samples in the tibias of the rats were subjected to biomechanical analysis using a digital torque device in order to evaluate the osseointegration process. As a result, it was observed that levofloxacin and cephalexin-derived antibiotics had a negative effect on implant osseointegration in the tibias of rats.
Downloads
References
Ozcan EC, Sokmen K, Karasu N, Bal A, Tanrisever M, Istek O, Kirtay M, Bozoglan A, Dundar S. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Osseointegration Levels of Implants Placed Simultaneously With Tibia, Femur, and Jaw Allogeneic Bone Grafts. J. Craniofac. Surg. [Internet]. 2025; 36(1):323-327. doi: https://doi.org/pszs
Gómez-deDiego R, Mang-de la Rosa MR, Romero-Pérez MJ, Cutando-Soriano A, López-Valverde-Centeno A. Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: Update. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. [Internet]. 2014; 19(5):e483-9. doi: https://doi.org/pszt
Donos N, Akcali A, Padhye N, Sculean A, Calciolari E. Bone regeneration in implant dentistry: Which are the factors affecting the clinical outcome? Periodontol. 2000. [Internet]. 2023; 93(1):26-55. doi: https://doi.org/g8nptk
Guglielmotti MB, Olmedo DG, Cabrini RL. Research on implants and osseointegration. Periodontol. 2000. [Internet]. 2019; 79(1):178-189. doi: https://doi.org/gpwcbp
Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. [Internet]. 2001; 10(Suppl 2):S96-S101. doi: https://doi.org/bbh8n6
Jensen LK, Koch J, Aalbaek B, Moodley A, Bjarnsholt T, Kragh KN, Petersen A, Jensen HE. Early implant- associated osteomyelitis results in a peri-implanted bacterial reservoir. APMIS. [Internet]. 2017; 125(1):38-45. doi: https://doi.org/f9gsqp
Resnik RR, Misch C. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens in oral implantology: rationale and protocol. Implant. Dent. [Internet]. 2008; 17(2):142-150. doi: https://doi.org/drpwh3
Hausman MR, Schaffler MB, Majeska RJ. Prevention of fracture healing in rats by an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Bone. [Internet]. 2001; 29(6):560-564. doi: https://doi.org/b94378
Keramaris NC, Calori GM, Nikolaou VS, Schemitsch EH, Giannoudis PV. Fracture vascularity and bone healing: a systematic review of the role of VEGF. Injury. [Internet]. 2008; 39(Suppl 2):S45-S57. doi: https://doi.org/cj5qvd
Ganse B. Methods to accelerate fracture healing - a narrative review from a clinical perspective. Front Immunol. [Internet]. 2024; 15:1384783. doi: https://doi.org/pszv
Perry AC, Prpa B, Rouse MS, Piper KE, Hanssen AD, Steckelberg JM, Patel R. Levofloxacin and trovafloxacin inhibition of experimental fracture-healing. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. [Internet]. 2003; 414:95-100. doi: https://doi.org/fpndfm
Maxwell A. The molecular basis of quinolone action. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. [Internet]. 1992; 30(4):409-414. doi: https://doi.org/dqz834
Davis R, Bryson HM. Levofloxacin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs. [Internet]. 1994; 47(4):677-700. doi: https://doi.org/fszp56
Shahabadi N, Hashempour S. DNA binding studies of antibiotic drug cephalexin using spectroscopic and molecular docking techniques. Nucleos. Nucleot. Nucl. Acids. [Internet]. 2019; 38(6):428-447. doi: https://doi.org/pszw
Papich MG, Lindeman C. Cephalexin susceptibility breakpoint for veterinary isolates: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute revision. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. [Internet]. 2017; 30(1):113-120. doi: https://doi.org/gcsn5t
Golestani S, Golestaneh A, Gohari AA. Comparative effects of systemic administration of levofloxacin and cephalexin on fracture healing in rats. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. [Internet]. 2022; 48(2):94-100. doi: https://doi.org/pszz
Holtom PD, Pavkovic SA, Bravos PD, Patzakis MJ, Shepherd LE, Frenkel B. Inhibitory effects of the quinolone antibiotics trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin on osteoblastic cells in vitro. J. Orthop. Res. [Internet]. 2000; 18(5):721–727. doi: https://doi.org/c85q99
Zhang Q, Jing D, Zhang Y, Miron RJ. Histomorphometric Study of New Bone Formation Comparing Defect Healing with Three Bone Grafting Materials: The Effect of Osteoporosis on Graft Consolidation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. [Internet]. 2018; 33(3):645–652. doi: https://doi.org/gd97zm
Huddleston PM, Steckelberg JM, Hanssen AD, Rouse MS, Bolander ME, Patel R. Ciprofloxacin inhibition of experimental fracture healing. J. Bone Joint Surg. [Internet]. 2000; 82(2):161–173. doi: https://doi.org/psz2
