ArticleAustralian dental journal2026
Patterns of Surgical Prophylaxis Prescribing for Dentoalveolar Procedures in Australian Hospitals: 2016-2022.
Article in Australian dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobials are an adjunctive therapy in clinical dentistry. In dentoalveolar surgery, antimicrobials are not routinely required for surgical prophylaxis. This retrospective analysis of the Australian Surgical National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (Surgical NAPS) dataset aimed to evaluate the guideline compliance and appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing for dentoalveolar procedures in Australian hospitals. METHODOLOGY: Deidentified Surgical NAPS data for dentoalveolar procedures (tooth extractions and implant placements) between 2016 and 2022 were extracted. Procedures outside the scope of a general dentist were excluded. Prescribed antimicrobials for surgical prophylaxis, including procedural prophylaxis doses and post-procedural prescriptions, were assessed for guideline compliance and appropriateness according to the Surgical NAPS algorithm.
results1345 surgical episodes with dental procedures were included. This comprised 1077 procedural prophylaxis doses and 555 post-procedural prescriptions. Of the post-procedural prescriptions, 478 (86%) were for prophylaxis. Guideline compliance was demonstrated in 35.3% of procedural doses and 14.6% of post-procedural prescriptions. Rates of appropriateness were 33.5% for procedural doses and 12.6% for post-procedural prescriptions. Most procedural doses and post-procedural prescriptions were deemed inappropriate as they were not required (72.5% and 93.0%, respectively).
conclusionsSuboptimal guideline compliance and appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing for dentoalveolar surgery reinforces the need for antimicrobial stewardship interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.