Evaluation of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy to promote antimicrobial stewardship in dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Infective Endocarditis Incidence Following Invasive Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures is still unclear. Indications for antibiotic prophylaxis were restricted by guidelines beginning in 2007. Objective: To systematically review and analyze existing evidence on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. Study Selection: Studies on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures or time-trend analyses of infective endocarditis incidence before and after current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study quality was evaluated using structured tools. Data were extracted by independent observers. A pooled relative risk (RR) of developing infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals who were receiving antibiotic prophylaxis vs those who were not was computed by random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was the incidence of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis. Results: Of 11 217 records identified, 30 were included (1 152 345 infective endocarditis cases). Of them, 8 (including 12 substudies) were either case-control/crossover or cohort studies or self-controlled case series, while 22 were time-trend studies; all were of good quality. Eight of the 12 substudies with case-control/crossover, cohort, or self-controlled case series designs performed a formal statistical analysis; 5 supported a protective role of antibiotic prophylaxis, especially among individuals at high risk, while 3 did not. By meta-analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk (pooled RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; P for heterogeneity = .51; I2, 0%). Nineteen of the 22 time-trend studies performed a formal pre-post statistical analysis; 9 found no significant changes in infective endocarditis incidence, 7 demonstrated a significant increase for the overall population or subpopulations (individuals at high and moderate risk, streptococcus-infective endocarditis, and viridans group streptococci-infective endocarditis), whereas 3 found a significant decrease for the overall population and among oral streptococcus-infective endocarditis. Conclusions and Relevance: While results from time-trend studies were inconsistent, data from case-control/crossover, cohort, and self-controlled case series studies showed that use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk, while no association was proven for those at low/unknown risk, thereby supporting current American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology recommendations. Currently, there is insufficient data to support any benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in individuals at moderate risk.

Endocarditis, invasive dental procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy in US Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cohort and case-crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. RESULTS: The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40-52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62-119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, p < 0.0001). Case-crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65-5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18-21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high-risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Dentists' compliance with infective endocarditis prophylaxis guidelines for patients with high-risk cardiac conditions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine dentists' awareness and/or adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) guidelines for preventing infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with high-risk heart conditions. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry, and Oral Sciences Source databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Nationwide studies based on questionnaires, surveys, and interviews completed by dentists and published since 2007 were included. RESULTS: From 2907 articles screened, 28 studies were selected (across 20 countries). The quality of included studies was poor due to a lack of standard evaluation tools, low response rates, and lack of questionnaire validity and/or reliability. Approximately 75% of surveyed dentists reported being knowledgeable about AP guidelines, but only ∼25% complied. Reported compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines was 4 times higher than with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations. Some of the highest adherence rates were reported for other national AP guidelines. Significant geographic differences were observed in the estimated adherence to AHA guidelines and the percentage of dentists who reported seeking advice from physicians and/or cardiologists. CONCLUSION: Rates of compliance and/or adherence were substantially different from rates of knowledge and/or awareness, including relevant geographic dissimilarities. Compliance/adherence was higher for AHA than NICE.

Oral hygiene and infective endocarditis: a case control study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if oral hygiene is associated with infective endocarditis (IE) among those at moderate risk for IE. STUDY DESIGN: This is a case control study of oral hygiene among hospitalized patients with IE (cases) and outpatients with heart valve disease but without IE (controls). The primary outcome was the mean dental calculus index. Secondary outcomes included other measures of oral hygiene and periodontal disease (e.g., dental plaque, gingivitis) and categorization of blood culture bacterial species in case participants. RESULTS: The 62 case participants had 53% greater mean dental calculus index than the 119 control participants (0.84, 0.55, respectively; difference = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.48; P = .002) and 26% greater mean dental plaque index (0.88, 0.70, respectively; difference = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.01.0.36; P = .043). Overall, cases reported fewer dentist and dental hygiene visits (P = .013) and fewer dental visits in the 12 weeks before enrollment than controls (P = .007). Common oral bacteria were identified from blood cultures in 27 of 62 cases (44%). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence to support and strengthen current American Heart Association guidance that those at risk for IE can reduce potential sources of IE-related bacteremia by maintaining optimal oral health through regular professional dental care and oral hygiene procedures.

Bacteremia following different oral procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the timing, duration and incidence of bacteremia following invasive dental procedures (IDPs) or activities of daily living (ADL). Eight databases were searched for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) evaluating bacteremia before and after IDPs or ADL in healthy individuals. The risk of bias was assessed by RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. For the meta-analysis, the primary outcomes were the timing and duration of bacteremia. The secondary outcome was the incidence of bacteremia, measuring the proportion of patients with bacteremia within 5 min after the end of the procedure compared with baseline. We included 64 nRCTs and 25 RCTs. Peak bacteremia occurred within 5 min after the procedure and then decreased over time. Dental extractions showed the highest incidence of bacteremia (62%-66%), followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) (44%-36%) and oral health procedures (OHP) (e.g., dental prophylaxis and dental probing without SRP) (27%-28%). Other ADL (flossing and chewing) (16%) and toothbrushing (8%-26%) resulted in bacteremia as well. The majority of studies had some concerns RCTs or moderate risk of bias nRCTs. Dental extractions, SRP and OHP, are associated with the highest frequency of bacteremia. Toothbrushing, flossing, and chewing also caused bacteremia in lower frequency.

Oral microbiomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE): a comparative pilot study of IE patients, patients at risk for IE and healthy controls.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is an uncommon disease with high morbidity and mortality rates, which often develops from oral bacterial species entering circulation. Objective: We compared oral microbiome profiles of three groups: IE patients (N  9 patients; n = 27 samples), disease controls at risk for IE (N = 28; n = 84), and healthy controls (N = 37; n = 111). Bacterial species in IE patients' blood cultures were identified for comparison with matched oral samples. Design: Oral microbiome profiles were obtained from buccal mucosa, saliva, and tongue samples for all three groups and from sub- and supra-gingival plaque samples of the IE group (N = 9; n = 16) and disease controls (N = 28; n = 54). Alpha- and beta-diversities were determined based on relative abundance data. Discriminative species were identified by LEfSe, post hoc Mann-Whitney, and ROC analyses. Identity of the bacterial species in IE patients' blood cultures was confirmed by 16S-rRNA gene Sanger sequencing. Results: Alpha- and beta-diversities differed between groups. Discriminative IE-associated species were identified, e.g. Haemophilus parainfluenzae and Streptococcus sanguinis. Two blood isolates were Staphylococcus aureus, also identified in one matched saliva sample. Streptococcus mutans was present in one patient's plaque samples and blood culture. Conclusions: Oral microbiomes of IE, non-IE disease controls, and healthy controls differed significantly. A better understanding of IE-related bacterial-host interactions is warranted.

Quantifying the risk of prosthetic joint infections after invasive dental procedures and the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Dentists face the expectations of orthopedic surgeons and patients with prosthetic joints to provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to reduce the risk of late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs), despite the lack of evidence associating IDPs with LPJIs, lack of evidence of AP efficacy, risk of AP-related adverse reactions, and potential for promoting antibiotic resistance. The authors aimed to identify any association between IDPs and LPJIs and whether AP reduces LPJI incidence after IDPs. METHOD: The authors performed a case-crossover analysis comparing IDP incidence in the 3 months immediately before LPJI hospital admission (case period) with the preceding 12-month control period for all LPJI hospital admissions with commercial or Medicare supplemental or Medicaid health care coverage and linked dental and prescription benefits data. RESULTS: Overall, 2,344 LPJI hospital admissions with dental and prescription records (n = 1,160 commercial or Medicare supplemental and n = 1,184 Medicaid) were identified. Patients underwent 4,614 dental procedures in the 15 months before LPJI admission, including 1,821 IDPs (of which 18.3% had AP). Our analysis identified no significant positive association between IDPs and subsequent development of LPJIs and no significant effect of AP in reducing LPJIs. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified no significant association between IDPs and LPJIs and no effect of AP cover of IDPs in reducing the risk of LPJIs. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In the absence of benefit, the continued use of AP poses an unnecessary risk to patients from adverse drug reactions and to society from the potential of AP to promote development of antibiotic resistance. Dental AP use to prevent LPJIs should, therefore, cease.

Assessment of Infectious Diseases Risks From Dental Aerosols in Real-World Settings.

Background: Infectious diseases physicians are leaders in assessing the health risks in a variety of community settings. An understudied area with substantial controversy is the safety of dental aerosols. Previous studies have used in vitro experimental designs and/or indirect measures to evaluate bacteria and viruses from dental surfaces. However, these findings may overestimate the occupational risks of dental aerosols. The purpose of this study was to directly measure dental aerosol composition to assess the health risks for dental healthcare personnel and patients. Methods: We used a variety of aerosol instruments to capture and measure the bacterial, viral, and inorganic composition of aerosols during a variety of common dental procedures and in a variety of dental office layouts. Equipment was placed in close proximity to dentists during each procedure to best approximate the health risk hazards from the perspective of dental healthcare personnel. Devices used to capture aerosols were set at physiologic respiration rates. Oral suction devices were per the discretion of the dentist. Results: We detected very few bacteria and no viruses in dental aerosols-regardless of office layout. The bacteria identified were most consistent with either environmental or oral microbiota, suggesting a low risk of transmission of viable pathogens from patients to dental healthcare personnel. When analyzing restorative procedures involving amalgam removal, we detected inorganic elements consistent with amalgam fillings. Conclusions: Aerosols generating from dental procedures pose a low health risk for bacterial and likely viral pathogens when common aerosol mitigation interventions, such as suction devices, are employed.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Against Infective Endocarditis Before Invasive Dental Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) is recommended to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in those at high IE risk, but there are sparse data supporting a link between IDPs and IE or AP efficacy in IE prevention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate any association between IDPs and IE, and the effectiveness of AP in reducing this. METHODS: We performed a case-crossover analysis and cohort study of the association between IDPs and IE, and AP efficacy, in 7,951,972 U.S. subjects with employer-provided Commercial/Medicare-Supplemental coverage. RESULTS: Time course studies showed that IE was most likely to occur within 4 weeks of an IDP. For those at high IE risk, case-crossover analysis demonstrated a significant temporal association between IE and IDPs in the preceding 4 weeks (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.59-2.52; P = 0.002). This relationship was strongest for dental extractions (OR: 11.08; 95% CI: 7.34-16.74; P < 0.0001) and oral-surgical procedures (OR: 50.77; 95% CI: 20.79-123.98; P < 0.0001). AP was associated with a significant reduction in IE incidence following IDP (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85; P = 0.01). The cohort study confirmed the associations between IE and extractions or oral surgical procedures in those at high IE risk and the effect of AP in reducing these associations (extractions: OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.34; P < 0.0001; oral surgical procedures: OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant temporal association between IDPs (particularly extractions and oral-surgical procedures) and subsequent IE in high-IE-risk individuals, and a significant association between AP use and reduced IE incidence following these procedures. These data support the American Heart Association, and other, recommendations that those at high IE risk should receive AP before IDP.

Infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures: IDEA case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a heart infection with a first-year mortality rate of ≈ 30%. It has long been thought that infective endocarditis is causally associated with bloodstream seeding with oral bacteria in ≈ 40-45% of cases. This theorem led guideline committees to recommend that individuals at increased risk of infective endocarditis should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a clinical trial to prove the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and there is no good-quality evidence to link invasive dental procedures with infective endocarditis. Many contend that oral bacteria-related infective endocarditis is more likely to result from daily activities (e.g. tooth brushing, flossing and chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if there is a temporal association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent infective endocarditis, particularly in those at high risk of infective endocarditis. DESIGN: This was a self-controlled, case-crossover design study comparing the number of invasive dental procedures in the 3 months immediately before an infective endocarditis-related hospital admission with that in the preceding 12-month control period. SETTING: The study took place in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals admitted to hospital with infective endocarditis between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016 were eligible to participate. INTERVENTIONS: This was an observational study; therefore, there was no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was the number of invasive and non-invasive dental procedures in the months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. DATA SOURCES: NHS Digital provided infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions data and dental procedure data were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. RESULTS: The incidence rate of invasive dental procedures decreased in the 3 months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission (incidence rate ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58). Further analysis showed that this was due to loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before any infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. LIMITATIONS: We found that urgent hospital admissions were a common cause of incomplete courses of dental treatment and, because there is no requirement to record dental procedure data for incomplete courses, this resulted in a significant loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions. The data set was also reduced because of the NHS Business Services Authority's 10-year data destruction policy, reducing the power of the study. The main consequence was a loss of dental procedure data in the critical 3-month case period of the case-crossover analysis (immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission), which did not occur in earlier control periods. Part of the decline in the rate of invasive dental procedures may also be the result of the onset of illness prior to infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, and part may be due to other undefined causes. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission makes interpretation of the data difficult and raises uncertainty over any conclusions that can be drawn from this study. FUTURE WORK: We suggest repeating this study elsewhere using data that are unafflicted by loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11684416. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Infective endocarditis is a life-threatening infection of the heart valves. Most people are at low risk of infective endocarditis. However, those with certain cardiac conditions are at moderate risk of infective endocarditis, and those with artificial or repaired heart valves, a history of infective endocarditis and certain congenital heart conditions are at high risk of infective endocarditis. In around 40­45% of cases, oral bacteria are the cause of infective endocarditis. For many years, those people at moderate or high risk of infective endocarditis were given antibiotics (antibiotic prophylaxis) before invasive dental procedures such as extractions to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis. There is no good-quality evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the link between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis. Many believe that the oral bacteria that cause infective endocarditis are more likely to enter the blood during daily activities (e.g. toothbrushing, flossing or chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene, than on the rare occasions when invasive dental procedures are performed. The aim of this study was to link English NHS data on infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions and dental treatments to determine if infective endocarditis is more likely in the weeks immediately after an invasive dental procedure than at any other time. When we linked the data sets and plotted the occurrence of different dental treatments over the year before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, we detected a problem in the way that dental data were recorded. Unfortunately, there was a failure to collect dental procedure data when courses of treatment were incomplete. As one of the most common reasons for not completing a course of treatment was emergency admission to hospital, this meant that the number of dental procedures recorded decreased in the weeks before any emergency hospital admission. We have attempted to correct for this, but the data loss has affected the data quality. Although the data suggest an association between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis in individuals at high risk of infective endocarditis, the certainty of this association has been weakened.

Comparison of aerosol mitigation strategies and aerosol persistence in dental environments.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of various aerosol mitigation interventions and to establish duration of aerosol persistence in a variety of dental clinic configurations. METHODS: We performed aerosol measurement studies in endodontic, orthodontic, periodontic, pediatric, and general dentistry clinics. We used an optical aerosol spectrometer and wearable particulate matter sensors to measure real-time aerosol concentration from the vantage point of the dentist during routine care in a variety of clinic configurations (eg, open bay, single room, partitioned operatories). We compared the impact of aerosol mitigation strategies (eg, ventilation and high-volume evacuation (HVE), and prevalence of particulate matter) in the dental clinic environment before, during, and after high-speed drilling, slow-speed drilling, and ultrasonic scaling procedures. RESULTS: Conical and ISOVAC HVE were superior to standard-tip evacuation for aerosol-generating procedures. When aerosols were detected in the environment, they were rapidly dispersed within minutes of completing the aerosol-generating procedure. Few aerosols were detected in dental clinics, regardless of configuration, when conical and ISOVAC HVE were used. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists should consider using conical or ISOVAC HVE rather than standard-tip evacuators to reduce aerosols generated during routine clinical practice. Furthermore, when such effective aerosol mitigation strategies are employed, dentists need not leave dental chairs fallow between patients because aerosols are rapidly dispersed.

Factors that affect dentists' use of antibiotic prophylaxis: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors that influence dentists' decision making concerning antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prescribing. The objective of this study was to determine factors that influence dentists' AP prescribing habits in patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 3,584 dentist members of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. In addition to descriptive statistics, ordinal regression models were used to determine the factors most likely to impact dentists' decisions to prescribe AP. RESULTS: Overall, 2,169 (61%) dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Resesarch Network responded. Responders' decisions to prescribe antibiotics were influenced primarily by official guidelines, scientific literature, and physician or medical specialist opinion. Regarding potential risks, the greatest level of concern was for the development of infective endocarditis or prosthetic joint infections. Although litigation was deemed problematic, more than 90% of responders indicated a strong concern for the best course of action for the patient's health. Dentists also indicated a high level of concern about the potential for generating antibiotic-resistant bacteria with AP use and increased risk of adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' AP decision making seems most influenced by official guidelines, scientific literature, and advice from a physician or medical specialist. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that one of the most effective means for promoting concordance of dentists clinical practice with the scientific basis for AP is to emphasize the importance and clarity of American Heart Association and American Dental Association recommendations and antimicrobial stewardship regarding prevention of infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Prosthetic Joint Patients Undergoing Invasive Dental Procedures: Time for a Rethink?

BACKGROUND: In the United States, it has been common practice to recommend that dentists provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs) in patients who have prosthetic arthroplasties despite lack of evidence for a causal relationship between IDP and LPJI and a lack of evidence for AP efficacy. METHODS: A recent study quantified the IDP incidence over the 15-month period prior to LPJI hospital admissions in the United Kingdom for which dental records were available. A case-crossover analysis compared IDP incidence in the 3 months before LPJI admission with the preceding 12 months. The English population was used because guidelines do not recommend AP and any relationship between IDPs and LPJI should be fully exposed. RESULTS: No significant positive association was identified between IDPs and LPJI. Indeed, the incidence of IDPs was lower in the 3 months before LPJI hospital admission than that in the preceding 12 months. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a significant positive association between IDPs and LPJI, there is no rationale to administer AP before IDPs in patients with prosthetic joints, particularly given the cost and inconvenience of AP, the risk of adverse drug reactions, and the potential for unnecessary AP use that promotes antibiotic resistance. These results should reassure orthopedic surgeons and their patients that dental care of patients who have prosthetic joints should focus on maintaining good oral hygiene rather than on recommending AP for IDPs. Moreover, it should also reassure those in other countries where AP is not recommended that such guidance is sufficient.

Analysis of Prosthetic Joint Infections Following Invasive Dental Procedures in England.

Importance: Dentists in the United States are under pressure from orthopedic surgeons and their patients with prosthetic joints to provide antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental procedures (IDP) to reduce the risk of late prosthetic joint infection (LPJI). This has been a common practice for decades, despite a lack of evidence for an association between IDP and LPJI, a lack of evidence of antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy, cost of providing antibiotic prophylaxis, and risk of both adverse drug reactions and the potential for promoting antibiotic resistance. Objective: To quantify any temporal association between IDP and subsequent LPJI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a case-crossover and time trend design to examine any potential association between IDP and LPJI. The population of England (55 million) was chosen because antibiotic prophylaxis has never been recommended to prevent LPJI in England, and any association between IDP and LPJI would therefore be fully exposed. All patients admitted to hospitals in England for LPJI from December 25, 2011, through March 31, 2017, and for whom dental records were available were included. Analyses were performed between May 2018 and June 2021. Exposures: Exposure to IDP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the incidence of IDP in the 3 months before LPJI hospital admission (case period) compared with the incidence in the 12 months before that (control period). Results: A total of 9427 LPJI hospital admissions with dental records (mean [SD] patient age, 67.8 [13.1] years) were identified, including 4897 (52.0%) men and 4529 (48.0%) women. Of these, 2385 (25.3%) had hip prosthetic joints, 3168 (33.6%) had knee prosthetic joints, 259 (2.8%) had other prosthetic joints, and 3615 (38.4%) had unknown prosthetic joint types. There was no significant temporal association between IDP and subsequent LPJI. Indeed, there was a lower incidence of IDP in the 3 months prior to LPJI (incidence rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.96; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is no rationale to administer antibiotic prophylaxis before IDP in patients with prosthetic joints.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Bleeding control interventions for invasive dental procedures in patients with inherited functional platelet disorders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine bleeding control interventions (BCIs) that were reported to be effective in controlling postoperative bleeding in patients with inherited functional platelet disorders (IFPDs) undergoing invasive dental procedures. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library (Wiley), and Scopus from 1960 through April 2020 for studies on patients with IFPD undergoing invasive dental procedures. Two reviewers conducted assessments independently. RESULTS: We found a total of 620 nonduplicate published articles, of which 32 studies met our inclusion criteria. Management with BCI in patients with IFPD included in this systematic review was effective in 80.7% of treatment sessions. Local measures used intraoperatively were found to be effective. Three different protocols of BCI were noted; the most effective protocol consisted of antifibrinolytics, scaffold/matrix agents, and sutures (P < .01). An adjunct protocol consisting of a tissue sealant was also effective (P < .01). A third protocol of platelet transfusion and antifibrinolytics was ineffective in controlling postoperative bleeding in 4 of 6 dental sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the use of local measures intraoperatively and antifibrinolytics postoperatively. It also supports making decision regarding platelet transfusion based on the clinician's clinical judgment and medical history of the individual patient.

Adapted from: Prevention of Viridans Group Streptococcal Infective Endocarditis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the American Heart Association published updated evidence-based guidelines on the recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent viridans group streptococcal (VGS) infective endocarditis (IE) in cardiac patients undergoing invasive procedures. The 2007 guidelines significantly scaled back the underlying conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended, leaving only 4 categories thought to confer the highest risk of adverse outcome. The purpose of this update is to examine interval evidence of the acceptance and impact of the 2007 recommendations on VGS IE and, if needed, to make revisions based on this evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: A writing group was formed consisting of experts in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis including members of the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in addition to the American Heart Association. MEDLINE database searches were done for English language articles on compliance with the recommendations in the 2007 guidelines and the frequency of and morbidity or mortality from VGS IE after publication of the 2007 guidelines. Overall, there was good general awareness of the 2007 guidelines but variable compliance with recommendations. There was no convincing evidence that VGS IE frequency, morbidity, or mortality has increased since 2007. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a review of the available evidence, there are no recommended changes to the 2007 VGS IE prevention guidelines. We continue to recommend VGS IE prophylaxis only for categories of patients at highest risk for adverse outcome while emphasizing the critical role of good oral health and regular access to dental care for all. Randomized controlled studies to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective against VGS IE are needed to further refine recommendations.