scholarly journals Current prescribing Practices for Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Survey of Dental Practitioners

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 559-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Rivera-Hidalgo ◽  
Leah S Spittle ◽  
Kathleen B Muzzin ◽  
Patricia R Campbell ◽  
Janice P DeWald
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
South Central ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Dental Practitioners

ABSTRACT Aim Antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines have been developed for health care and dentistry. The authors examined whether dentists were following the 2007 American Heart Association (AHA) and the 2012 American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis. Materials and methods A survey was sent to 600 dentists in the south-central region of the United States. The survey examined dentists’ prescribing practices for patients with cardiac and prosthetic joint replacements, antibiotic regimen prescribed, confidence in their prescription decisions, and dentistry's contribution to antibiotic resistance. Results The response rate was 28.7% (n = 172). Dentists followed the 2007 AHA guidelines for patients with a history of infective endocarditis (95%), and cardiac valves repaired with prosthetic materials (76%) or animal/donor tissue (61%). For prosthetic joint replacement, 72% prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis within the first 2 years after placement and 58% continued to prescribe after 2 years. Amoxicillin was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic for cardiac conditions (92%) and prosthetic joint replacements (77%). No significant differences were found in relation to dentists’ gender (p = 0.75), year of graduation (p = 0.71), scope of practice (p = 0.30), and their confidence in their prescription decisions; 73% believed taking multiple doses of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistance. Conclusion The majority of dentists were following the 2007 AHA guidelines. Confusion regarding the 2012 AAOS guidelines for prosthetic joint replacement was evident. Clinical significance Keeping current with changing antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines ensures dentists are providing the best evidence-based dentistry for their patients. How to cite this article Spittle LS, Muzzin KB, Campbell PR, DeWald JP, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Current prescribing Practices for Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Survey of Dental Practitioners. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(7):559-566.

Review of Guidelines for Dental Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Prevention of Endocarditis and Prosthetic Joint Infections and Need for Dental Stewardship

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra A Goff ◽  
Julie E Mangino ◽  
Andrew H Glassman ◽  
Douglas Goff ◽  
Peter Larsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Dental Procedure ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Joint Infections ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Prosthetic Joint Infections

Abstract Dentists prescribe 10% of all outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, writing more than 25.7 million prescriptions per year. Many are for prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements; the American Dental Society states that “in general,” prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended to prevent prosthetic joint infections. Orthopedic surgeons are concerned with the risk of implant infections following a dental procedure and, therefore, see high value and low risk in recommending prophylaxis. Patients are “stuck in the middle,” with conflicting recommendations from orthopedic surgeons (OS) and dentists. Unnecessary prophylaxis and fear of lawsuits amongst private practice dentists and OS has not been addressed. We review The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, American Dental Association, and American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons’ guidelines on dental antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections. We provide experience on how to engage private-practice dentists and OS in dental stewardship using a community-based program.

scholarly journals 221. Comparison of dental antibiotic prescribing between Australia, England, the United States and British Columbia in 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S112-S112
Author(s):  
Leanne Teoh ◽  
Wendy Thompson ◽  
Colin Hubbard ◽  
David M Patrick ◽  
Fawziah Marra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Research Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Public Health Burden

Abstract Background Antibiotic resistance is recognised as a major public health burden. Dentists overprescribe antibiotics and prescribe for unnecessary indications. Tracking and investigating prescribing practices by healthcare professionals provides insights needed to inform targeted antibiotic stewardship interventions. It is unclear how dental antibiotic prescribing patterns differs between countries. The aim of this study was to compare antibiotic prescribing by dentists in Australia, England the United States (US) and British Columbia (BC). Methods This was a cross-sectional study of dispensed dental antibiotic prescriptions between January 1 and December 31, 2017, from Australia, England, US and BC. Dispensed dental antibiotic prescriptions included those from outpatient pharmacies and healthcare settings. Outcome measures included the proportion of dental antibiotic prescriptions by location and prescribing rates by population. Results English dentists prescribed 1.6 times more antibiotics than those in Australia, and dentists in BC and US prescribed around twice more than Australian dentists. (Australia: 33.2 prescriptions/1000population; England: 53.5 prescriptions/1000population; US: 72.6 prescriptions/1000 population; BC: 65.0 prescriptions/1000 population). The types of antibiotics prescribed were similar across all countries, where penicillins were the predominant class prescribed (66.8–80.5% of antibiotic prescriptions). US dentists and dentists in BC prescribed more clindamycin compared to the dentists in other countries. Conclusion Dentists in the US, England and BC prescribed at relatively higher rates than Australian dentists. The findings from this study should initiate an evaluation by dentists of their prescribing practices and responsibilities regarding their contribution towards antibiotic resistance. Further investigations can be aimed at determining country-specific factors that influence dental antibiotic prescription. Disclosures Leanne Teoh, BDSc(Hons) BPharm(Hons), Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (Other Financial or Material Support, Scholarship awarded for the PhD candidature)

scholarly journals Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment after prosthetic joint replacement: exploring the orthopaedic surgeon's opinion

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare M. McNally ◽  
Renuka Visvanathan ◽  
Sharon Liberali ◽  
Robert J. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Prosthetic Joint

scholarly journals Antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing habits in oral implant surgery in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Rodríguez Sánchez ◽  
Iciar Arteagoitia ◽  
Carlos Rodríguez Andrés ◽  
Josef Bruers
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Dutch Association ◽  
Oral Implant

Abstract Background There seems to be no consensus on the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in oral implant surgery. The Dutch Association of Oral Implantology (NVOI) guidelines do not include a clear policy on prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions for oral implant surgery among healthy patients. The purpose of the study was to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly prescribed in the Netherlands by general dentists, maxillofacial surgeons and oral implantologists in conjunction with oral implant surgery among healthy patients and to assess the type and amount of prophylactic antibiotic prescribed. Methods This observational cross-sectional study is based on a web survey. A questionnaire developed in the United States of America was translated and slightly adjusted for use in the Netherlands. It contained predominantly close-ended questions relating to demographics, qualifications, antibiotic type, prescription duration and dosage. An email including an introduction to the study and an individual link to the questionnaire was sent in February 2018 to a sample of 600 general dental practitioners and all 302 specialized dentists (oral implantologists, periodontists and maxillofacial surgeons) recognized by the NVOI. Overall, 902 questionnaires were anonymously sent. Finally, 874 potential participants were reached. Collected data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Results In total, 218 (24.9%) participants responded to the questionnaire, including 45 females (20.8%) and 171 males (79.2%). Overall, 151 (69.9%) regularly placed oral implants. Of them, 79 (52.7%) prescribe antibiotics only in specific situations, 66 (43.7%) regularly, and 5 (3.3%) did not prescribe antibiotics at all. Overall, 83 participants who prescribe antibiotics did so both pre- and postoperatively (57.2%), 47 only preoperatively (32.4%) and 12 exclusively postoperatively (8.3%). A single dose of 2000 mg of amoxicillin orally one hour prior to surgery was the most prescribed preoperative regimen. The most frequently prescribed postoperative regimen was 500 mg of amoxicillin three times daily for five days after surgery. On average, participants prescribe a total of 7018 mg of antibiotics before, during or after oral implant surgery. Conclusions Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with oral implant surgery is prescribed in the Netherlands on a large scale, and recommendations based on the last published evidence are frequently not followed.

scholarly journals Preference Of Dental Practitioner On Antibiotic Prophylaxis For Infective Endocarditis Guidelines: The Cohort Of Klang Valley

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nor Azura Ahmad Tarmidzi ◽  
Nalisha Mohamed Ramli ◽  
Norzalina Ghazali ◽  
Mohd Nazrin Mohd Isa ◽  
Ammar Yaseer bin Abdul Hakim@Abdul Khakin
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Dental Practitioner ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Klang Valley ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology

Introduction: Antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines for infective endocarditis have been regularly revised and modified based on current scientific evidence. These guidelines commonly regarded as standard of care and determine the medicolegal standards. The aim of this study was to elicit the current practice of prophylaxis antibiotic for Infective endocarditis among general dental practitioner in Klang Valley. Materials and Methods: A standardized questionnaire forms were distributed to the selected dental practitioners in Klang Valley by mail. Results: 43 out of 427 questionnaires was answered and posted back. 70.6% of the respondent claimed to be following guidelines that advocate antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis (American Heart Association, British Cardiac Society, European Society of Cardiology) while others claimed to be following The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (no antibiotic prophylaxis). However, majority of the respondent showed poor compliance towards the guideline. Several barriers have been identified. Conclusion(s): Majority of the respondent preferred to choose AHA guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis. However, adherence to the guidelines seems to be low. Efforts to increase awareness of the guidelines among the dental practitioner should be taken.

Reducing Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections: A Quasi-Experimental Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15
Author(s):  
Cynthia Alicia Brown
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Antibiotic Overuse ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Problem:Approximately 50% of antibiotics prescribed are not necessary; nevertheless, in the United States among the many outpatient prescriptions, there are few more widely prescribed than antibiotics. The overuse of antibiotics to treat viral infections has been largely responsible for the emergence of antibiotic resistance.Methods:A quasi-experimental study was conducted among a sample of eight urgent care providers who received the 1-hour Reducing Outpatient Antibiotic Resistance (ROAR) educational intervention on antibiotic overuse and appropriate prescribing. Outcomes measured included provider antibiotic prescribing rates for viral illnesses before and after intervention, prescribing practices among the providers, and provider awareness and beliefs regarding antibiotic prescribing and resistance.Results:The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased from 30% to 20% after intervention, p = .078. Pre-intervention patients had a 3.3 times (p = .001) and post-intervention patients had a 4.2 times (p ≤ .0005) greater likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic if they were seen by a physician than if they were seen by a nurse practitioner. Within their setting, 87% believed antibiotics are overused, and 99% believed antibiotic resistance is a problem.Discussion:Additional research utilizing the ROAR intervention is necessary to evaluate its effect on antibiotic prescribing in the urgent care setting.

Local Histories/Global Designs

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter D. Mignolo
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Central America ◽  
Postcolonial Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
South Central ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Border Thinking ◽  
East West

This book is an extended argument about the “coloniality” of power. In a shrinking world where sharp dichotomies, such as East/West and developing/developed, blur and shift, this book points to the inadequacy of current practices in the social sciences and area studies. It explores the crucial notion of “colonial difference” in the study of the modern colonial world and traces the emergence of an epistemic shift, which the book calls “border thinking.” Further, the book expands the horizons of those debates already under way in postcolonial studies of Asia and Africa by dwelling on the genealogy of thoughts of South/Central America, the Caribbean, and Latino/as in the United States. The book's concept of “border gnosis,” or sensing and knowing by dwelling in imperial/colonial borderlands, counters the tendency of occidentalist perspectives to manage, and thus limit, understanding. A new preface discusses this book as a dialogue with Hegel's Philosophy of History.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document