ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Antibiotic Prophylaxis of Infective Endocarditis in Dentistry: An Update on the ESC, AHA, and NICE Guidelines.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but life-threatening infection of the endocardial surface of the heart, usually arising when circulating microorganisms colonise the cardiac valves; it carries an in-hospital mortality of roughly 15-30%. Because oral viridans group streptococci cause a substantial proportion of community-acquired cases, antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures has historically been central to prevention, placing dental practitioners at the centre of a long-standing and unsettled debate. This narrative review synthesises the contemporary evidence and the divergence between major guideline bodies. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines raised AP for high-risk patients to a Class I recommendation, and the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) statement remains closely aligned, restricting AP to those at highest risk of adverse outcome. The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), by contrast, has advised against AP since 2008 (and, since a 2016 amendment, against its routine use). This divergence has produced an international discordance that leaves clinicians and patients facing conflicting advice. This review examines the pathogenesis and microbiology of oral-origin IE, the conditions and procedures that define risk, and the contested epidemiological evidence, including population-level data linking reduced prescribing to rising IE incidence. It then discusses the implications for clinical practice and the central role of oral health. The evidence base remains observational and associative rather than causal; definitive randomised data are lacking. The review argues that, pending stronger evidence, dentists should identify the framework governing their jurisdiction, apply it consistently, prioritise oral health, and share documented decisions with patients.
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.