Dataset Information

Prophylactic antibiotic prescribing in dental practice: Findings from a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network questionnaire.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about antibiotic prescribing practices of dentists. The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of dentists' beliefs and behaviors regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team developed and disseminated a questionnaire to 3,584 dentist members of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Results

Overall, 2,169 network dentists (61%) responded. Respondents saw patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis (IE) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) at least once per week (35% and 65%, respectively). Although 78% of dentists agreed that the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines for the prevention of IE are well-defined and clear, only 49% agreed concerning PJI guidelines. Differences for the IE and PJI patient populations also existed for questions regarding dentists' understanding of the specific patient groups at risk, the recommended antibiotic regimens, and the need to consult with a patient's cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon.

Conclusions

The survey results indicate that decision making regarding the use of AP occurs frequently among dentists. Moreover, dentists reported uncertainty about the appropriate use of AP as defined by both IE and PJI guidelines, which may have resulted in a lack of concordance between dentists' beliefs and their practice behaviors.

Practical implications

The results reported by the authors highlight the need to develop better educational programs that address antimicrobial stewardship in AP for patients at risk of developing IE and PJI and target the dental profession.

SUBMITTER: Lockhart PB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7583674 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew published reports have presented concordance between treatment choices selected by dentists in hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice. The aim of the current cross-sectional study, conducted within the Management of Dental Hypersensitivity (MDH) study, was to assess the potential value of practitioners' questionnaire responses regarding their typical treatment provided for management of dentin hypersensitivity (DH), by evaluating agreement between these responses and subsequently-observed recommendations recorded during actual clinical examinations.MethodsA total of 171 practitioners enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed both a questionnaire and a clinical study regarding methods they use to treat dental hypersensitivity. The questionnaire solicited first-, second- and third-choice products when prescribing or recommending management of dentin hypersensitivity. Agreement was calculated for first-choice products/recommendations and for inclusion in the top three choices, as identified by the practitioners, from 11 listed treatment options. Overall percent agreement and Cohen's kappa statistic were calculated, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations between practitioner characteristics and agreement were also evaluated.ResultsFor individual treatment modalities, percentage agreement ranged from 63 to 99%, depending on the specific item. Percentage agreement between typical treatment and actual treatment for each practitioner's top three treatment modalities, as a combined grouping, ranged from 61 to 100%. When these same agreement pairings were quantified to account for agreement above that expected by chance, kappa values were poor to low.ConclusionsConcordance between hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice showed moderate to high levels of percentage agreement, but Cohen's kappa values suggested relatively low levels of agreement beyond that expected by chance. This analysis adds to the larger work of the network which has now observed a wide range of agreement between hypothetical and actual care, depending upon the specific diagnosis or treatment under consideration. Questionnaire data for DH might serve as a useful adjunct to clinical data regarding treatment recommendations, but agreement was not sufficiently high to justify use of questionnaires alone to characterize patterns of treatment for this particular condition.

Project description:ObjectivesThe study objective was to: (1) quantify symptom (pain) and crack changes during one year of follow-up, among teeth that had at least one visible crack at baseline but which did not receive treatment for those cracks; (2) identify any patient traits/behaviors and external tooth/crack characteristics correlated with these changes.MethodsIn this observational study, 209 National Dental Practice-Based Research Network dentists enrolled a convenience sample of 2858 subjects, each with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least one observed external crack; 1850 teeth remained untreated after one year of follow-up and were the cohort for analyses. Data were collected at the patient-, tooth-, and crack-level at baseline, one-year follow up (Y1), and interim visits. Associations between changes in symptoms and cracks were identified, as were changes in symptoms associated with baseline treatment recommendations.ResultsChanges in pain symptoms were observed in 32% of patients; decreases were twice as common as increases (23% vs. 10%). More changes were observed in cold pain than in biting pain and spontaneous pain combined; 2% had increases in biting pain and 2% in spontaneous pain. Only 6% had an increase in the number of cracks. Changes in pain symptoms were not associated with an increase in the number of cracks, but were associated with baseline treatment recommendations. Specifically, pain symptom changes (especially decreases) were more common when the tooth was recommended for treatment at baseline.ConclusionsCracked teeth that have not received treatment one year after baseline do not show meaningful progression as measured by increased symptoms or number of cracks during follow-up.Clinical significanceUntreated cracked teeth, most of which were recommended for monitoring at baseline and some of which were recommended for treatment but did not receive treatment, remained relatively stable for one year with little progression of cracks or symptoms.