Antibiotic prescribing practices by South Australian general dental practitioners

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.The prescribing habits of a randomly selected approximately 10 per cent sample of South Australian general dental practitioners were obtained by postal questionnaire. Sixty-eight (61 per cent) usable replies were received and analysed. Generally, there was an appropriate level of knowledge of antibiotic prescription. However, there was a tendency toward over-prescription and a demonstrated lack of knowledge of the incidence of adverse reactions, development of multiresistant strains and prophylaxis against bacterial endocarditis. All of these areas are real challenges to the profession, whether in an overall global community health sense or in a highly individualized clinical or medico-legal sense. These issues are discussed and the profession is urged to reconsider and re-educate itself on these challenges.Tom Jaunay, Paul Dambrook and Alastair Gos

Severe odontogenic infections

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Background: Severe odontogenic infections are serious potentially lethal conditions. Following the death of a patient in the authors’ institution this study was initiated to determine the risk factors, management and outcome of a consecutive series of patients. Methods: All patients admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital under the care of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit with odontogenic infections in calendar year 2003 were investigated. Detailed information relative to their prepresentation history, surgical and anaesthetic management and outcome was obtained and analysed. Results: Forty-eight patients, 32M, 16F, average age 34.5, range 19 to 88 years were treated. All presented with pain and swelling, with 21 (44 per cent) having trismus. Forty-four (92 per cent) were as a result of dental neglect and four (8 per cent) were regular dental patients having endodontic treatment which failed. Of those known to have been treated prior to presentation, most had been on antibiotics. Most patients had aggressive surgical treatment with extraction, surgical drainage, high dose intravenous antibiotics and rehydration. The hospital stay was 3.3 (range 1-16) days. Patients requiring prolonged intubation and high dependency or intensive care (40 per cent) had longer hospitalization. No patient died and all fully recovered. Conclusion: Severe odontogenic infections are a serious risk to the patient’s health and life. Management is primarily surgical with skilled anaesthetic airway management. Antibiotics are required in high intravenous doses as an adjunct and not as a primary treatment.IC Uluibau, T Jaunay and AN Gos

Patients with artificial joints: do they need antibiotic cover for dental treatment?

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.This study reviews whether patients with artificial joints need antibiotic cover for dental treatment. Generally in Australia the practice has developed of giving most patients with artificial joints antibiotic prophylaxis for a wide range of dental procedures. This is partly on anecdotal grounds, partly historical and partly for legal concerns. It has been encouraged by some guidelines. Scientifically, the risk and the benefit of each step in the process needs to be analysed. This review shows that the risk of an artificial joint becoming infected from a bacteraemia of oral origin is exceedingly low whereas the risk of an adverse reaction to the antibiotic prophylaxis is higher than the risk of infection. If all patients with artificial joints receive antibiotic prophylaxis then more will die from anaphylaxis than develop infections. Factors which balance the risk benefit are if the patient is seriously immunocompromised, if the joint prosthesis is failing or chronically inflamed and if the dental procedures, such as from extractions and deep periodontal scaling, produce high level bacteraemias. Recommendations to rationalize antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with artificial joints are presented.JF Scott, D Morgan, M Avent, S Graves and AN Gos

Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis: time to reconsider

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Some cardiac conditions require antibiotic prophylaxis for some types of dental treatment to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis (IE). All medical and dental practitioners are familiar with this practice but tend to use different regimens in apparently similar circumstances. Generally, the trend has been to prescribe antibiotics if in doubt. This review explores the evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent IE: does it work and is it safe? The changing nature of IE, the role of bacteraemia of oral origin and the safety of antibiotics are also reviewed. Most developed countries have national guidelines and their points of similarity and difference are discussed. One can only agree with the authority who describes antibiotic guidelines for endocarditis as being ‘like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are fragmentary, imperfect, capable of various interpretations and (mainly) missing!’ Clinical case-controlled studies show that the more widely antibiotics are used, the greater the risk of adverse reactions exceeding the risk of IE. However, the consensus is that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory for a small number of high-risk cardiac and high-risk dental procedures. There are a large number of low-risk cardiac and dental procedures in which the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics exceeds the risk of IE, where prophylaxis should not be provided. There is an intermediate group of cardiac and dental procedures for which careful individual evaluation should be made to determine whether IE or antibiotics pose the greater risk. These categories are presented. All medical and dental practitioners need to reconsider their approach in light of these current findings.J Singh, I Straznicky, M Avent and AN Gos