{"title":"Steroid Prophylaxis: The knowledge and practices of New Zealand General Dental Practitioners.","authors":"A Coetzee, E L Goodhew, H L De Silva, W M Thomson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe the knowledge and practices of New Zealand (NZ) General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) concerning the use of steroid prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was conducted in 2013 involving a sample of 500 NZ GDPs who met inclusion criteria and had email addresses on the Dental Council register.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 214 dentists responded, giving a 44.5% response rate after accounting for undelivered questionnaires. Nearly two-thirds (61 .7%) did not currently recommend corticosteroid prophylaxis, although nearly three-quarters (74.8%) believed that dental treatment posed a potential risk to patients with adrenal suppression. Over half (53.4%) believed that oral corticosteroids could cause adrenocortical suppression, and a similar proportion (58.3%) believed that a specific dose of oral prednisolone of 7.5 mg per day could do so. Most practitioners (79.6%) supported the formulation of steroid prophylaxis guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite most NZ GDPs believing the dental setting to pose a risk of adrenal crisis for patients taking corticosteroids, there is some confusion among dentists identifying at-risk patients and their ability to manage if such an event was to occur in their practices. There is further confusion over whether steroid prophylaxis is warranted for perceived at-risk patients, and which regime to follow when it is. There is an associated tendency to be over-cautious when determining the need for steroid prophylaxis, and to rely on their undergraduate steroid prophylaxis guidelines when doing so. There is a need for evidence-based guidelines to be formulated by an expert panel.</p>","PeriodicalId":76703,"journal":{"name":"The New Zealand dental journal","volume":"112 4","pages":"102-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The New Zealand dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To describe the knowledge and practices of New Zealand (NZ) General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) concerning the use of steroid prophylaxis.
Methods: An online survey was conducted in 2013 involving a sample of 500 NZ GDPs who met inclusion criteria and had email addresses on the Dental Council register.
Results: A total of 214 dentists responded, giving a 44.5% response rate after accounting for undelivered questionnaires. Nearly two-thirds (61 .7%) did not currently recommend corticosteroid prophylaxis, although nearly three-quarters (74.8%) believed that dental treatment posed a potential risk to patients with adrenal suppression. Over half (53.4%) believed that oral corticosteroids could cause adrenocortical suppression, and a similar proportion (58.3%) believed that a specific dose of oral prednisolone of 7.5 mg per day could do so. Most practitioners (79.6%) supported the formulation of steroid prophylaxis guidelines.
Conclusion: Despite most NZ GDPs believing the dental setting to pose a risk of adrenal crisis for patients taking corticosteroids, there is some confusion among dentists identifying at-risk patients and their ability to manage if such an event was to occur in their practices. There is further confusion over whether steroid prophylaxis is warranted for perceived at-risk patients, and which regime to follow when it is. There is an associated tendency to be over-cautious when determining the need for steroid prophylaxis, and to rely on their undergraduate steroid prophylaxis guidelines when doing so. There is a need for evidence-based guidelines to be formulated by an expert panel.