Assessment of the Difference Between General Practitioners and Specialists in Antibiotic Prescription for Emergency Patients

Background:Endodontic emergencies are one of the most common emergencies that dentists face during their career. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and assess the difference between general dentists and endodontists in managing endodontic emergency cases. Also, it highlights the risk of bacterial resistance due to an inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted at King Abdul-Aziz University Dental Hospital, a self-administered survey was distributed to 521 dental patients. The response rate was 82.9% (432 out of 521). The survey, available in both paper and electronic formats, comprised 24 questions organized into three main sections: the first section collected demographic and medical history data, the second focused on the patients\u27 dental history related to emergencies, and the third detailed the treatment received during emergencies and the methods employed. A Fisher\u27s exact test was utilized to assess significant differences between general dental practitioners and endodontic specialists regarding their initial steps, reasons for treatment, swelling conditions, biting and chewing conditions, and final treatments. Data analysis involved simple descriptive statistics, including percentages, frequency distributions, pie charts, and bar graphs. Statistical significance was determined with a p-value set at ≤ 0.05. Results: The study revealed that decay was the most prevalent reason for endodontic treatment, with immediate treatment being the preferred choice among dentists. Despite the well-documented issue of endodontic treatment failure due to inadequate coronal sealing, the majority of general dentists performed root canal treatments followed by either temporary or permanent restorations. Additionally, the study found that general dentists prescribed antibiotics more frequently than endodontists. Conclusion: The study findings indicate the need to develop intervention programs targeting clinicians to enhance knowledge about prescribing antibiotics for endodontic emergencies

Association between Endodontic infection, its Treatment and Systemic Health: A Narrative Review

The ‘Focal Infection Era in Dentistry’ in the late 19th and early 20th century resulted in widespread implementation of tooth extraction and limited the progress of endodontics. The theory proposed that bacteria and toxins entrapped in dentinal tubules could disseminate systemically to remote body parts, resulting in many types of degenerative systemic diseases. This theory was eventually refuted due to anecdotal evidence. However, lately there has been increased interest in investigating whether endodontic disease could have an impact on general health. There are reviews that have previously been carried out on this subject, but as new data have emerged since then, this review aims to appraise the available literature investigating the dynamic associations between apical periodontitis, endodontic treatment, and systemic health. The available evidence regarding focal infection theory, bacteraemia and inflammatory markers was appraised. The review also collated the available research arguing the associations of apical periodontitis with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, adverse pregnancy outcome and autoimmune disorders, along with the effect of statins and immunomodulators on apical periodontitis prevalence and endodontic treatment prognosis. There is emerging evidence that bacteraemia and low-grade systemic inflammation associated with apical periodontitis may negatively impact systemic health, e.g., development of cardiovascular diseases, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and diabetic metabolic dyscontrol. However, there is limited information supporting the effect of diabetes mellitus or autoimmune disorders on the prevalence and prognosis post endodontic treatment. Furthermore, convincing evidence supports that successful root canal treatment has a beneficial impact on systemic health by reducing the inflammatory burden, thereby dismissing the misconceptions of focal infection theory. Although compelling evidence regarding the association between apical periodontitis and systemic health is present, further high-quality research is required to support and establish the benefits of endodontic treatment on systemic health

Association between Endodontic Infection, Its Treatment and Systemic Health: A Narrative Review

The ‘Focal Infection Era in Dentistry’ in the late 19th and early 20th century resulted in widespread implementation of tooth extraction and limited the progress of endodontics. The theory proposed that bacteria and toxins entrapped in dentinal tubules could disseminate systemically to remote body parts, resulting in many types of degenerative systemic diseases. This theory was eventually refuted due to anecdotal evidence. However, lately there has been increased interest in investigating whether endodontic disease could have an impact on general health. There are reviews that have previously been carried out on this subject, but as new data have emerged since then, this review aims to appraise the available literature investigating the dynamic associations between apical periodontitis, endodontic treatment, and systemic health. The available evidence regarding focal infection theory, bacteraemia and inflammatory markers was appraised. The review also collated the available research arguing the associations of apical periodontitis with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, adverse pregnancy outcome and autoimmune disorders, along with the effect of statins and immunomodulators on apical periodontitis prevalence and endodontic treatment prognosis. There is emerging evidence that bacteraemia and low-grade systemic inflammation associated with apical periodontitis may negatively impact systemic health, e.g., development of cardiovascular diseases, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and diabetic metabolic dyscontrol. However, there is limited information supporting the effect of diabetes mellitus or autoimmune disorders on the prevalence and prognosis post endodontic treatment. Furthermore, convincing evidence supports that successful root canal treatment has a beneficial impact on systemic health by reducing the inflammatory burden, thereby dismissing the misconceptions of focal infection theory. Although compelling evidence regarding the association between apical periodontitis and systemic health is present, further high-quality research is required to support and establish the benefits of endodontic treatment on systemic health

A review of guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental treatments

Bacteraemia associated with invasive dental treatments can propagate infective endocarditis in high-risk cardiac patients. Over the past decade, antibiotic prophylaxis before dental treatment has been questioned. This review aims to compare the variations between the UK, European and American antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines before dental treatments. Antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)—Clinical Guideline 64, Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP), American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Society of Endodontology (ESE) and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) position statements were compared regarding the indications, high-risk patients and prophylaxis regimens before dental treatments. In the United Kingdom, the NICE—Clinical Guideline 64 and SDCEP—Implementation Advice do not advise the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics for the majority of high-risk cardiac patients undergoing routine dental treatments. On the contrary, the AHA, ESC and KEC recommend the prescription of antibiotics prior to invasive dental procedures in high-risk cardiac individuals. The ESE also indicates prophylaxis before endodontic procedures for patients with other conditions, including impaired immunologic function, prosthetic joint replacement, high-dose jaw irradiation and intravenous bisphosphonates. Among these guidelines, there are variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. There are variations regarding the indications and antibiotic prophylaxis regimens before invasive dental treatments among these available guidelines

Hematuria: Is it useful in predicting renal or ureteral stones in patient presenting to emergency department with flank pain?

Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. Patients and Methods: In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Results: Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the specificity or positive or negative predictive values. Conclusion: Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool