ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Trends in adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists: a 15-year analysis of German pharmacovigilance data.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDentists frequently encounter adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in their day-to-day work. Despite the legal obligation in Germany to report ADRs, systematic evaluations of dental pharmacovigilance data remain scarce. This study aimed to analyze ADR reports submitted by dentists to the Drug Commission of the German Dental Association. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll ADR reports submitted between 2010 and 2024 were analyzed according to year, medication class, and affected organ system. Incidence rates per dentist were calculated and trends over time were assessed using Poisson regression analysis.
resultsA total of 983 ADR reports were included. Antibiotics accounted for the majority of reports (59.4%), followed by local anesthetics (15.7%). The most frequently affected organ systems were the skin (39.8%) and the gastrointestinal tract (21.7%). On average, 65.5 reports were submitted annually. The overall incidence rate was 91.7 reports per 100,000 dentist years, declining by 9.5% annually over the study period. Clindamycin had the highest incidence of ADR reports (26.7 per 100,000 dentist years) but also the steepest annual decrease (–17.1% per year).
conclusionThe proportion of ADRs reported by dentists is low compared with the expected number of ADRs, indicating substantial underreporting. A significant decline in reporting was observed over time. Consistent with previous studies, antibiotics and cutaneous reactions predominated. The reduction in clindamycin-related ADR reports reflects a substantial decrease in clindamycin prescriptions in Germany. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mandatory spontaneous reporting remains essential for dental pharmacovigilance. However, implementing digital tools and low-threshold reporting systems could improve the quantity and quality of future ADR reports.
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.