Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29326959›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2018

Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Tooth Extractions, Dental Implants, and Periodontal Surgical Procedures.

Katie J Suda, Heather Henschel, Ursula Patel, Margaret A Fitzpatrick, Charlesnika T Evans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Severe infections after teeth removal - are we doing enough in preventing them?Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katie J SudaCenter of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Illinois.
Heather HenschelPharmacy Service, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Illinois.
Ursula PatelPharmacy Service, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Illinois.
Margaret A FitzpatrickCenter of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Illinois.
Charlesnika T EvansCenter of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Illinois.
Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines for antibiotics prior to dental procedures for patients with specific cardiac conditions and prosthetic joints have changed, reducing indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. In addition to guidelines focused on patient comorbidities, systematic reviews specific to dental extractions and implants support preprocedure antibiotics for all patients. However, data on dentist adherence to these recommendations are scarce.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional study of veterans undergoing tooth extractions, dental implants, and periodontal procedures. Patients receiving antibiotics for oral or nonoral infections were excluded. Data were collected through manual review of the health record.

resultsOf 183 veterans (mean age, 62 years; 94.5% male) undergoing the included procedures, 82.5% received antibiotic prophylaxis (mean duration, 7.1 ± 1.6 days). Amoxicillin (71.3% of antibiotics) and clindamycin (23.8%) were prescribed most frequently; 44.7% of patients prescribed clindamycin were not labeled as penicillin allergic. Of those who received prophylaxis, 92.1% received postprocedure antibiotics only, 2.6% received preprocedural antibiotics only, and 5.3% received pre- and postprocedure antibiotics. When prophylaxis was indicated, 87.3% of patients received an antibiotic. However, 84.9% received postprocedure antibiotics when preprocedure administration was indicated. While the majority of antibiotics were indicated, only 8.2% of patients received antibiotics appropriately. The primary reason was secondary to prolonged duration. Three months postprocedure, there were no occurrences of

conclusionThe majority of patients undergoing a dental procedure received antibiotic prophylaxis as indicated. Although patients for whom antibiotic prophylaxis was indicated should have received a single preprocedure dose, most antibiotics were prescribed postprocedure. Dental stewardship efforts should ensure appropriate antibiotic timing, indication, and duration.

Indexed as

antibiotic prophylaxisdental implantdentistperiodontal surgerytooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID29326959
PMCPMC5757640
OpenAlexW2751154764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.