Assessing Variances in Dentist's Interpretations of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines: A Survey of Dental School Faculty.

IF 1.9 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International Journal of Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-01-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijod/9355907
Jennifer Bereckis, Susan Rowan, Danny Hanna, Aniruddh Narvekar, Anne Koerber
{"title":"Assessing Variances in Dentist's Interpretations of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines: A Survey of Dental School Faculty.","authors":"Jennifer Bereckis, Susan Rowan, Danny Hanna, Aniruddh Narvekar, Anne Koerber","doi":"10.1155/ijod/9355907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> A recent review by the American Heart Association (AHA) noted a decrease in the prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for infective endocarditis (IE) following the release of their guidelines in 2007. However, studies indicate dentists may still face challenges in identifying which procedures require AP and which procedures are considered to involve gingival manipulation (GM) requiring the need for AP. <b>Methods:</b> A sample of dental school faculty was surveyed to assess their likelihood of prescribing AP for various dental procedures when treating individuals at high risk for IE and their perception of the likelihood of those procedures involving GM. <b>Results:</b> A total of 134 individuals responded to the survey. Consensus on AP was not achieved for eight of 24 procedures, and consensus on GM was not achieved for four out of 24 procedures. <b>Conclusions:</b> Data gathered revealed a difference of opinions among dental faculty concerning the appropriate dental procedures warranting the prescription of AP for patients at risk of IE. Similarly, there was a lack of consensus among dental faculty regarding dental procedures specifically involving GM. The discordance observed between these two categories implies a potential lack of clarity in the 2007 AHA guidelines. The criteria related to GM for determining the necessity of AP in high-risk individuals may introduce confusion for dental faculty, possibly extending to dentists practicing in nonacademic settings. Such ambiguity can potentially contribute to inappropriate decision-making regarding the prescription of AP.</p>","PeriodicalId":13947,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9355907"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11824311/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/9355907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: A recent review by the American Heart Association (AHA) noted a decrease in the prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for infective endocarditis (IE) following the release of their guidelines in 2007. However, studies indicate dentists may still face challenges in identifying which procedures require AP and which procedures are considered to involve gingival manipulation (GM) requiring the need for AP. Methods: A sample of dental school faculty was surveyed to assess their likelihood of prescribing AP for various dental procedures when treating individuals at high risk for IE and their perception of the likelihood of those procedures involving GM. Results: A total of 134 individuals responded to the survey. Consensus on AP was not achieved for eight of 24 procedures, and consensus on GM was not achieved for four out of 24 procedures. Conclusions: Data gathered revealed a difference of opinions among dental faculty concerning the appropriate dental procedures warranting the prescription of AP for patients at risk of IE. Similarly, there was a lack of consensus among dental faculty regarding dental procedures specifically involving GM. The discordance observed between these two categories implies a potential lack of clarity in the 2007 AHA guidelines. The criteria related to GM for determining the necessity of AP in high-risk individuals may introduce confusion for dental faculty, possibly extending to dentists practicing in nonacademic settings. Such ambiguity can potentially contribute to inappropriate decision-making regarding the prescription of AP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估牙科医生对抗生素预防指南的理解差异:牙科学院教师调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Dentistry
International Journal of Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
219
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knowledge on Management of Traumatic Dental Injury and Related Predictors in Taif, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nursing Students' Perspectives Toward Providing Oral Health Care for Older People. Assessing Variances in Dentist's Interpretations of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines: A Survey of Dental School Faculty. Effects of Gigantochloa apus String Bamboo Fiber Brushes on Heat-Cured Acrylic Resin Plate Surface Roughness. Topographic Evaluation of Inflammatory Periapical Lesions in the First Molar's Region Using CBCT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1