Antibiotic-prescribing habits among Norwegian dentists: a survey over 25 years (1990-2015)

Awareness regarding antimicrobial resistance and confidence to prescribe antibiotics in dentistry: a cross-continental student survey

BACKGROUND

The antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis is a major global threat and one of its biggest drivers is the overuse of antibiotics in humans. Dentists are responsible for 5-10% antibiotic prescriptions worldwide and recent data suggest that knowledge and prescribing practices need improvement.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-survey was sent to dental students from six universities in Norway, Canada, and Brazil. Topics addressed covered awareness, confidence to prescribe antibiotics, and education needs. Data were presented descriptively and statistical testing was employed to compare group means when applicable.

RESULTS

In total, 562 responses were collected across the three countries with a response rate of 28.6%. 'Antibiotic resistance' was among the highest priorities (scale 1-10) with an average of 8.86 (SEM ± 0.05), together with 'Gender inequality' (8.68 ± 0.07) and 'Climate change' (8.68 ± 0.07). Only 28.8% thought that Dentistry was engaged in national/international campaigns promoting awareness on the topic and 8.9% stated to have heard about the 'One Health' concept. Final year dental students showed an average confidence to prescribe antibiotics of 7.59 (± 0.14). Most students demonstrated interest in receiving additional education on all topics listed, with the three most pressing being 'antibiotic prescription for treatment of infections' (82.9%), 'drug interactions' (80.9%), and 'spread of antibiotic resistance' (79.6%). A trend was observed between higher awareness regarding the topic and higher confidence to prescribe.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to revisit dental education on antibiotic resistance with a global perspective and to create more stewardship initiatives that promote awareness on the topic.

Antibiotic prescription after tooth extraction in adults: a retrospective cohort study in Austria

BACKGROUND

Broad spectrum antibiotics are often used for the prophylaxis of infectious endocarditis and treatment of odontogenic infections, but there are limited data related to antibiotic use and adherence to prescription guidelines.  METHODS: Data from patients with tooth extraction between 2014 and 2018 were selected from a database of a regional health insurance fund. We created three data sets, one based on all tooth extractions, one on multiple teeth extractions, and one including only single tooth extraction. After data collection, descriptive analysis was carried out. The differences in prescription pattern of antibiotic medicine were tested by χ2 test, Student´s t-test or ANOVA.

RESULTS

From 43,863 patients with tooth extraction, 53% were female, and 3,983 patients (9.1%) filled a prescription for antibiotic medicine. From 43,863 patients, 157 patients (0.4%) had endocarditis risk, but only 8 patients of these (5.1%) filled an antibiotic prescription. In total, 9,234 patients had multiple and 34,437 patients had only one tooth extraction. Patients with more than one tooth extraction received more often antibiotic treatment (10.7%) compared to those with single tooth extractions (χ2 = 36; p < 0,001). Patients with more than one tooth extraction were older, however, younger patients received antibiotics more frequently (t = 28,774, p = 0.001). There was no relationship with endocarditis risk status. Clindamycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid were the most frequently prescribed antibiotic medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort study, dentists did not discriminate prophylactic antibiotic prescription with regard to endocarditis risk status. A factor influencing prescribing behaviour of antibiotic medicines was the number of extracted teeth.

Adherence to Antibiotic Prescription of Dental Patients: The Other Side of the Antimicrobial Resistance

Since non-adherence to antibiotic therapy can cause several problems, including antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and treatment failures, the present study evaluated adherence to oral antibiotic therapy and AMR awareness among consecutively enrolled dental patients. Data concerning age, gender, socioeconomic status, education level, cohabitation, and general health were retrieved from medical records. AMR awareness was investigated through direct questions and adherence to antibiotic treatment was assessed through a modified Italian version of the Morisky medical scale-8 items. Participants’ characteristics were analyzed in relation to treatment adherence and AMR, using a Χ2 independence test (significance level of α <0.1). Dental patients generally showed a low (51.82%) adherence to oral antibiotic therapy, and medium and high adherence was reported only by 29.37% and 18.81% of participants. Treatment adherence was similar in relation to participants’ gender and age but significantly lower in subjects with only secondary school graduation and higher in participants with higher education levels. Non-cohabitants were significantly more adherent than cohabitants. AMR awareness was declared by 42.15% of males and 38.70% of females: 56.52% of dental patients aware of AMR were 18−38 years old, 35.20% were 39−59 years old, and 26.95% were aged between 60 and 80. Further studies are needed to develop adequate strategies, expanding dental patients’ knowledge of AMR, thus optimizing the benefits and reducing the risks of antibiotic administration in dental patients.

Dentists’ Habits of Antibiotic Prescribing May be Influenced by Patient Requests for Prescriptions

Objective

This study evaluates dentists' antibiotic prescribing habits and the frequency of facing patient pressure for prescriptions.

Methods

An online anonymous survey was used to collect data on antibiotic prescribing practices, including prescribing unnecessary antibiotics if requested by patients.

Results

The study population included 345 dentists; 227 (65.8%) were females and 118 (34.2%) were males. 54 (15.7%) reported that they prescribed unnecessary antibiotics more than once per week, 47 (13.6%) once per month, 135 (39.1%) rarely, and 109 (31.6%) never prescribed unnecessary antibiotics. 117 (33.9%) reported being pressured by patients to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics more than once per week. 110 (31.9%) reported being pressured by patients to do so at least once per month. There was a statistical difference between the two genders (P < 0.001) in reporting that patients pressured them to prescribe antibiotics when antibiotics were not necessary for treatment or prophylactic purposes and in prescribing unnecessary antibiotics sometimes if requested by a patient (P=0.008). In addition, there was a statistical difference in dentists' confidence in their knowledge and practice in the area of antibiotic prescribing (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The results show that unnecessary antibiotic prescribing by dentists can be influenced by patient pressure.

Attitudes towards Antibiotic Prescription and Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness among Italian Dentists: What Are the Milestones?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing phenomenon, often associated with the improper prescription of antibiotics, prescribed by those who do not follow the guidelines for antibiotic stewardship. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current attitude towards antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance awareness among Italian dentists. An online questionnaire was distributed to Italian dentists from September to December 2021. The questionnaire was composed of three main sections. The first part was focused on demographic characteristics, the second part on prescription habits, and the third part on the dentists’ knowledge regarding the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance. A chi-square test was used to find associations between different variables. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. A total of 382 dentists completed the questionnaire. The main reasons for antibiotic prescribing were for abscesses (39.6%), extractions (24.5%), and pulpitis (14.1%). The majority of participants (85.3%) reported prescribing macrolides in the case of a penicillin allergy. Most dentists (98.9%) were aware of the antimicrobial resistance phenomenon, but only 7.4% of them consulted the guidelines for prescribing antibiotics. This study demonstrates that the same trend exists in Italy as in other countries in terms of the high prevalence of misuse and overuse of antibiotics, and that Italian dentists utilize a range of antibiotic management strategies.

Exploring the Use of Antibiotics for Dental Patients in a Middle-Income Country: Interviews with Clinicians in Two Ghanaian Hospitals

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global problem driven by the overuse of antibiotics. Dentists are responsible for about 10% of antibiotics usage across healthcare worldwide. Factors influencing dental antibiotic prescribing are numerous, with some differences in low- and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries. This study aimed to explore the antibiotic prescribing behaviour and knowledge of teams treating dental patients in two Ghanaian hospitals. Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with dentists, pharmacists, and other healthcare team members at two hospitals in urban and rural locations. Thematic and behaviour analyses using the Actor, Action, Context, Target, Time framework were undertaken. Results: Knowledge about ‘antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic stewardship’ and ‘people and places’ were identified themes. Influences on dental prescribing decisions related to the organisational context (such as the hierarchical influence of colleagues and availability of specific antibiotics in the hospital setting), clinical issues (such as therapeutic versus prophylactic indications and availability of sterile dental instruments), and patient issues such as hygiene in the home environment, delays in seeking professional help, ability to access antibiotics in the community without a prescription and patient’s ability to pay for the complete prescription. Conclusions: This work provides new evidence on behavioural factors influencing dental antibiotic prescribing, including resource constraints which affect the availability of certain antibiotics and diagnostic tests. Further research is required to fully understand their influence and inform the development of new approaches to optimising antibiotic use by dentists in Ghana and potentially other low- and middle-income countries.

Changes in Dentists' Prescribing Patterns in Norway 2005-2015

BACKGROUND

There is scant knowledge of dentists' total prescribing patterns, and little is published on this internationally. The Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) includes data on all dispensed prescription medication in Norway from 2004 and can be used to investigate how dentists' prescribing has changed over time. There are few Norwegian guidelines supporting dentists' prescribing, and Norwegian legislation on dentists' prescribing rights leaves room for interpretation. The aim of this study was therefore to give an overview of all prescribing from dentists in Norway in the period 2005 to 2015 and to identify trends in their prescribing pattern over this time span. We also give characteristics of the prescribing dentists.

METHODS

The study had a retrospective pharmacoepidemiologic design. Data on all medication prescribed by dentists and dispensed from Norwegian pharmacies in the time period 2005 to 2015 were extracted from the NorPD. Changes over time in the prescribers, patients, and medications are reported.

RESULTS

There was an increase of 50% in total number of prescriptions from dentists in Norway from 2005 to 2015; adjusted for the growth in population, there was a 33% increase. The majority of prescriptions from dentists were for antibiotics and analgesics; however, the data reveal that the dentists prescribed from all major therapeutic groups. Dentists increased antibiotic prescribing in a period when total antibiotic prescribing in Norway decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study finds antibiotics and analgesics dominate prescriptions from Norwegian dentists and shows an increase in use over time. It highlights the need for creating evidence-based prescribing guidelines for dentists and for ensuring that existing guidelines are implemented.

Mucosal Vaccination Against Periodontal Disease: Current Status and Opportunities

Approximately 9 out of 10 adults have some form of periodontal disease, an infection-induced inflammatory disease of the tooth-supporting tissues. The initial form, gingivitis, often remains asymptomatic, but this can evolve into periodontitis, which is typically associated with halitosis, oral pain or discomfort, and tooth loss. Furthermore, periodontitis may contribute to systemic disorders like cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Control options remain nonspecific, time-consuming, and costly; largely relying on the removal of dental plaque and calculus by mechanical debridement. However, while dental plaque bacteria trigger periodontal disease, it is the host-specific inflammatory response that acts as main driver of tissue destruction and disease progression. Therefore, periodontal disease control should aim to alter the host's inflammatory response as well as to reduce the bacterial triggers. Vaccines may provide a potent adjunct to mechanical debridement for periodontal disease prevention and treatment. However, the immunopathogenic complexity and polymicrobial aspect of PD appear to complicate the development of periodontal vaccines. Moreover, a successful periodontal vaccine should induce protective immunity in the oral cavity, which proves difficult with traditional vaccination methods. Recent advances in mucosal vaccination may bridge the gap in periodontal vaccine development. In this review, we offer a comprehensive overview of mucosal vaccination strategies to induce protective immunity in the oral cavity for periodontal disease control. Furthermore, we highlight the need for additional research with appropriate and clinically relevant animal models. Finally, we discuss several opportunities in periodontal vaccine development such as multivalency, vaccine formulations, and delivery systems.

Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescription for Prophylactic Purposes among Italian Dental Practitioners: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the pattern of antibiotic prescription for prophylaxis purposes among Italian DPs (dental practitioners). A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted using a multi-stage sampling design. A structured questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic data and information about antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prescriptions for selected dental diagnoses and surgical procedures. The presence of an indication and appropriateness of AP were defined according to international guidelines. In total, 563 DPs answered the questionnaire (response rate 52.6%). The proportions of DPs who prescribed AP in the presence of an indication ranged from 39.1% for luxation injury with soft tissue trauma to 73.1% for dental implants, whilst DPs who prescribed AP in healthy patients ranged from 41.9% in luxation injury with soft tissue trauma to 70.3% for bone grafting. The course of AP reported by DPs was not consistent with the guidelines in 70.9% of explored procedures. A high proportion of AP prescriptions before dental procedures were unnecessary. This highlights the urgent need to incorporate recommendations for best practices into national and local protocols as soon as they are established. Specific antibiotic stewardship strategies targeted to DPs should be implemented and assessed for effectiveness in improving prescribing of antibiotics.

Antibiotic Use in Periodontal Therapy among French Dentists and Factors Which Influence Prescribing Practices

The aim of the present survey is to investigate the use of antibiotics during periodontal therapy among French dentists with a focus on exploring potential differences between various groups of practitioners. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to different groups of practitioners including members of (i) the French Society of Periodontology and Implantology; (ii) the College of University Teachers in Periodontology and, (iii) private practitioners participating in the French general dental practice-based research network. 272 questionnaires were included in the analysis. Prescription patterns were globally in line with the current recommendations. Systemic antibiotics are most frequently used as a first-line therapy in necrotizing periodontitis (92%) and aggressive periodontitis (53.3% to 66.1%). However, malpractice still exists, including in the management of periodontal abscesses. Antibiotics are prescribed (i) less frequently for periodontal abscesses and (ii) more frequently for generalized aggressive periodontitis by members of the periodontal society and University college (p < 0.05). Amoxicillin (59.9%) and the amoxicillin + metronidazole (59.6%) combination were the most frequently prescribed molecules. Providing a high number of periodontal treatments per week, being more recently graduated, having a post-graduate certificate in periodontology and holding or having held an academic position/hospital practice were all factors associated with a better knowledge of and/or more adequate antibiotic use.

Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions

BACKGROUND

The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear.  Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence).  We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.

Prescribing antibiotics by dentists in Colombia: Toward a conscientious prescription

OBJECTIVES

Inappropriate prescription of antibiotics contributes to antibiotic resistance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the awareness, attitudes, and intention to practice of dentists prescribing antibiotics in Colombia in order to design a virtual learning environment on this subject.

METHODS

In a descriptive study across seven cities, 700 dentists from different Colombian cities were requested to complete a validated questionnaire containing five sections: general information, awareness on antibiotic effectiveness and antibiotic resistance, attitudes regarding prescription decision, intention to practice concerning clinical cases, and complementary information. The level of awareness, attitudes, and intention to practice was determined and Chi-square test was used to determine the existence of significant differences among cities.

RESULTS

The majority of dentists showed a medium level regarding the number of correct answers on awareness (62.4 percent) and attitudes (88.7 percent) and a high level on intention to practice (91.7 percent). Common errors within the awareness section included the meaning of the term "antibiotic resistance" (35 percent) and most dentists were not convinced that such resistance could be derived from prescription of antibiotics (51.2 percent). In the attitudes section, only 45 percent declared that they prescribe antibiotics based mainly on symptoms, and the intention to practice section showed a significant percentage of unnecessary prescription (51 percent for pacemaker users) or absence of prescription (53.9 percent for ventricular septal defect) in antibiotic prophylaxis for infectious endocarditis (IE).

CONCLUSION

The dentists interviewed should be trained and made aware of antibiotic resistance, microbiological and clinical foundations, and current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.

Shift in antibiotic prescription at a University Dental Clinic in Norway 2013-2017

A considerable number of prescriptions for antibiotics are issued by dentists. Educational institutions have a special responsibility to promote informed attitudes among dental students towards prescribing antibiotics. The purpose of this study was to analyze the antibiotic prescriptions issued during a 5-year period (2013-2017) at a University Dental Clinic (UDC) in Norway. All patient records containing prescriptions for patients ≥18 yr of age as of 2013-2017 were identified through an electronic search. In total, 6,014 patient record lines containing prescriptions were obtained, 1,047 (17.4%) of which were prescriptions for systemic antibiotics. These patient record lines were analysed to identify the specific antibiotic prescribed, the indication or diagnosis for which it was prescribed, and whether microbiological testing (to determine antibiotic sensitivity) had been carried out. Acute infections were the most common context for prescribing antibiotics. Surprisingly, prophylaxis was the second most frequent reason stated. Disease related to pulp necrosis (43%) and postoperative infections (26%) was the most common diagnosis for therapeutic antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotic therapy was more commonly used to treat peri-implantitis than to treat periodontitis. Only 60% of the clindamycin prescriptions were issued to patients with penicillin allergy. Further studies are warranted concerning antibiotic use at UDC because this can probably be more restrictive, in particular concerning usage related to antibiotic prophylaxis. Microbiological testing should be performed before administration of antibiotic therapy for periodontitis and peri-implantitis. The reason for prescribing antibiotics should always be stated in the patient's record lines.

Antibiotic use and resistance: a nationwide questionnaire survey among French dentists

The aim of this survey was to describe the attitudes and self-reported practices of French dentists towards antibiotic use and resistance and to compare practices with national guidelines. A nationwide cross-sectional internet-based survey was conducted among the 41,800 French dentists. The online questionnaire was distributed through professional networks from April 2017 to April 2018. Seven-hundred seventy-five dentists participated but only 455 questionnaires were complete enough to be included in the analyses. Amoxicillin was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic (65.8%, 1783/2711), followed by spiramycin + metronidazole fixed-dose combination (11.6%, 312/2711) and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (10.3%, 279/2711). The main indications for use were abscess (349/423, 82.5%), cervicofacial cellulitis (74.2%, 314/423), and pericoronitis (58.6%, 239/408). Most dentists (90.5%, 381/421) considered that antibiotic resistance is of concern but only half of them (56.3%, 238/423) felt adequately informed about antibiotic use. Many dentists did not comply with the national guidelines: the majority of them declared inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for 11/17 clinical situations. They did not prescribe antibiotics for 5/6 clinical situations requiring prophylaxis. They reported that the publication of clinical guidelines is the main factor influencing their prescriptions (71.0%, 299/421). They wished to receive regular updates of national guidelines in the form of practical sheets (93.0%, 172/185). French dentists should urgently be targeted by antibiotic stewardship initiatives.

The use and misuse of antibiotics in dentistry: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

To describe antibiotic prescribing behaviors in dentistry, including clinical and nonclinical indications for their use, the type and regimen of antibiotics prescribed, and factors influencing their prescription, the authors conducted a scoping review.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a scoping review of published literature by searching multiple databases. Key search terms included dentist, antibiotic, antimicrobial, antibacterial, prophylaxis, prescription, pattern, habit, knowledge, and practice. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts by using detailed eligibility criteria. The authors placed no restrictions on study design or publication year. The authors qualitatively assessed studies by using a modified version of the Center for Evidence-Based Management's critical appraisal of a survey checklist.

RESULTS

The authors identified 1,912 studies but considered only 118 studies eligible for review. Most included studies were either cross-sectional surveys (81 studies) or prescription audits (25 studies) from various geographic locations. Publication dates ranged from 1982 through 2017. The authors examined prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic use in 48 and 29 studies, respectively. Another 29 studies examined the use of both prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics in dentistry. Overall, dentists prescribed a wide variety of antibiotic regimens for various clinical and nonclinical indications. Dentists have acquired their prescribing knowledge from a variety of sources and have changed their antibiotic prescribing practices throughout their careers for various reasons.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Considering the seriousness of antibiotic resistance, the authors highlight trends in antibiotic prescribing practices, characterize factors contributing to the use and misuse of antibiotics in dentistry, provide insight into the importance of antibiotic stewardship in the oral health setting, and encourage dentists to reflect on their antibiotic prescription practices.

The effect of interventions aiming to optimise the prescription of antibiotics in dental care-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Abundant evidence in dentistry suggests that antibiotics are prescribed despite the existence of guidelines aiming to reduce the development of antibiotic resistance. This review investigated (1) which type of interventions aiming to optimise prescription of antibiotics exist in dentistry, (2) the effect of these interventions and (3) the specific strengths and limitations of the studies reporting on these interventions.

METHOD

Literature search was based on Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials. Studies with one of the two primary outcomes were included: (1) The number of antibiotics prescribed and/or (2) the accuracy of the prescription, commonly measured as a percentage of adherence to local clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Nine studies met these inclusion criteria. Five studies reported on the prescription of antibiotics in primary dental care and four studies focused on outpatient dental care. Interventions used in primary dental care included a combination of audit, feedback, education, local consensus, dissemination of guidelines and/or academic detailing. Trials in the outpatient setting made use of expert panel discussions, educational feedback on previous acts of prescribing, the dissemination of guidelines and the establishment of internal guidelines. All studies successfully reduced the number of antibiotics prescribed and/or increased the accuracy of the prescription. However, most studies were confounded by a high risk of selection bias, selective outcome reporting and high variance across study groups. In particular, information relating to study design and methodology was insufficient. Only three studies related the prescriptions to the number of patients treated with antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review was able to offer conclusions which took the limitations of the investigated studies into account. Unfortunately, few studies could be included and many of these studies were confounded by a low quality of scientific reporting and lack of information regarding study methodology. High-quality research with objective and standardised outcome reporting, longer periods of follow-up, rigorous methodology and adequate standard of study reporting is urgently needed.