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.

How decisions are made: Antibiotic stewardship in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: We performed a preimplementation assessment of workflows, resources, needs, and antibiotic prescribing practices of trainees and practicing dentists to inform the development of an antibiotic-stewardship clinical decision-support tool (CDST) for dentists. METHODS: We used a technology implementation framework to conduct the preimplementation assessment via surveys and focus groups of students, residents, and faculty members. Using Likert scales, the survey assessed baseline knowledge and confidence in dental providers' antibiotic prescribing. The focus groups gathered information on existing workflows, resources, and needs for end users for our CDST. RESULTS: Of 355 dental providers recruited to take the survey, 213 (60%) responded: 151 students, 27 residents, and 35 faculty. The average confidence in antibiotic prescribing decisions was 3.2 ± 1.0 on a scale of 1 to 5 (ie, moderate). Dental students were less confident about prescribing antibiotics than residents and faculty (P < .01). However, antibiotic prescribing knowledge was no different between dental students, residents, and faculty. The mean likelihood of prescribing an antibiotic when it was not needed was 2.7 ± 0.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 (unlikely to maybe) and was not meaningfully different across subgroups (P = .10). We had 10 participants across 3 focus groups: 7 students, 2 residents, and 1 faculty member. Four major themes emerged, which indicated that dentists: (1) make antibiotic prescribing decisions based on anecdotal experiences; (2) defer to physicians' recommendations; (3) have limited access to evidence-based resources; and (4) want CDST for antibiotic prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' confidence in antibiotic prescribing increased by training level, but knowledge did not. Trainees and practicing dentists would benefit from a CDST to improve appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.

Personal protective equipment use among dental healthcare personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the impact of an educational video in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Dental healthcare personnel (DHCP) are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to identify how DHCP changed their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to pilot an educational video designed to improve knowledge of proper PPE use. DESIGN: The study comprised 2 sets of semistructured qualitative interviews. SETTING: The study was conducted in 8 dental clinics in a Midwestern metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 70 DHCP participated in the first set of interviews; 63 DHCP participated in the second set of interviews. METHODS: In September-November 2020 and March-October 2021, we conducted 2 sets of semistructured interviews: (1) PPE use in the dental community during COVID-19, and (2) feedback on the utility of an educational donning and doffing video. RESULTS: Overall, 86% of DHCP reported having prior training. DHCP increased the use of PPE during COVID-19, specifically N95 respirators and face shields. DHCP reported real-world challenges to applying infection control methods, often resulting in PPE modification and reuse. DHCP reported double masking and sterilization methods to extend N95 respirator use. Additional challenges to PPE included shortages, comfort or discomfort, and compatibility with specialty dental equipment. DHCP found the educational video helpful and relevant to clinical practice. Fewer than half of DHCP reported exposure to a similar video. CONCLUSIONS: DHCP experienced significant challenges related to PPE access and routine use in dental clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. An educational video improved awareness and uptake of appropriate PPE use among DHCP.

Opportunities for penicillin allergy evaluation in dental clinics.

Objective: To evaluate opportunities for assessing penicillin allergies among patients presenting to dental clinics. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: VA dental clinics. Patients: Adult patients with a documented penicillin allergy who received an antibiotic from a dentist between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Methods: Chart reviews were completed on random samples of 100 patients who received a noncephalosporin antibiotic and 200 patients who received a cephalosporin. Each allergy was categorized by severity. These categories were used to determine patient eligibility for 3 testing groups based on peer-reviewed algorithms: (1) no testing, (2) skin testing, and (3) oral test-dose challenge. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare facility and patient demographics first between true penicillin allergy, pseudo penicillin allergy, and missing allergy documentation, and between those who received a cephalosporin and those who did not at the dental visit. Results: Overall, 19% lacked documentation of the nature of allergic reaction, 53% were eligible for skin testing, 27% were eligible for an oral test-dose challenge, and 1% were contraindicated from testing. Male patients and African American patients were less likely to receive a cephalosporin. Conclusions: Most penicillin-allergic patients in the VA receiving an antibiotic from a dentist are eligible for penicillin skin testing or an oral penicillin challenge. Further research is needed to understand the role of dentists and dental clinics in assessing penicillin allergies.

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.

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.

Assessment of dental health care personnel protocol deviations and self-contamination during personal protective equipment donning and doffing.

BACKGROUND: Dental health care personnel (DHCP) may be at increased risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus that causes COVID-19, as well as other clinically important pathogens. Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces occupational exposure to pathogens. The authors performed an assessment of PPE donning and doffing practices among DHCP, using a fluorescent marker as a surrogate for pathogen transmission. METHODS: Participants donned PPE (that is, disposable gown, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and the fluorescent marker was applied to their palms and abdomen. DHCP then doffed PPE according to their usual practices. The donning and doffing processes were video recorded, areas of fluorescence were noted, and protocol deviations were assessed. Statistical analyses included frequency, type, and descriptions of protocol deviations and factors associated with fluorescence. RESULTS: Seventy DHCP were enrolled. The donning and doffing steps with the highest frequency of protocol deviations were hand hygiene (66% of donning and 78% of doffing observations involved a deviation) and disposable gown use (63% of donning and 60% of doffing observations involved a deviation). Fluorescence was detected on 69% of DHCP after doffing, most frequently on hands. An increasing number of protocol deviations was significantly associated with increased risk of fluorescence. DHCP with a gown doffing deviation, excluding doffing out of order, were more likely to have fluorescence detected. CONCLUSIONS: DHCP self-contamination was common with both donning and doffing PPE. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Proper use of PPE is an important component of occupational health.

Concordance of antibiotic prescribing with the American Dental Association acute oral infection guidelines within Veterans' Affairs (VA) dentistry.

OBJECTIVE: United States dentists prescribe 10% of all outpatient antibiotics. Assessing appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing has been challenging due to a lack of guidelines for oral infections. In 2019, the American Dental Association (ADA) published clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of acute oral infections. Our objective was to describe baseline national antibiotic prescribing for acute oral infections prior to the release of the ADA CPG and to identify patient-level variables associated with an antibiotic prescription. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: We performed an analysis of national VA data from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. We identified cases of acute oral infections using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Antibiotics prescribed by a dentist within ±7 days of a visit were included. Multivariable logistic regression identified patient-level variables associated with an antibiotic prescription. RESULTS: Of the 470,039 VA dental visits with oral infections coded, 12% of patient visits with irreversible pulpitis, 17% with apical periodontitis, and 28% with acute apical abscess received antibiotics. Although the median days' supply was 7, prolonged use of antibiotics was frequent (≥8 days, 42%-49%). Patients with high-risk cardiac conditions, prosthetic joints, and endodontic, implant, and oral and maxillofacial surgery dental procedures were more likely to receive antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Most treatments of irreversible pulpitis and apical periodontitis cases were concordant with new ADA guidelines. However, in cases where antibiotics were prescribed, prolonged antibiotic courses >7 days were frequent. These findings demonstrate opportunities for the new ADA guidelines to standardize and improve dental prescribing practices.

Prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the American Heart Association recommended that antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) be restricted to those at high risk of developing complications due to infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing invasive dental procedures. The authors aimed to estimate the appropriateness of AP prescribing according to type of dental procedure performed in patients at high risk, moderate risk, or low or unknown risk of developing IE complications. METHODS: Eighty patients at high risk, 40 patients at moderate risk, and 40 patients at low or unknown risk of developing IE complications were randomly selected from patients with linked dental care, health care, and prescription benefits data in the IBM MarketScan Databases, one of the largest US health care convenience data samples. Two clinicians independently analyzed prescription and dental procedure data to determine whether AP prescribing was likely, possible, or unlikely for each dental visit. RESULTS: In patients at high risk of developing IE complications, 64% were unlikely to have received AP for invasive dental procedures, and in 32 of 80 high-risk patients (40%) there was no evidence of AP for any dental visit. When AP was prescribed, several different strategies were used to provide coverage for multiple dental visits, including multiday courses, multidose prescriptions, and refills, which sometimes led to an oversupply of antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: AP prescribing practices were inconsistent, did not always meet the highest antibiotic stewardship standards, and made retrospective evaluation difficult. For those at high risk of developing IE complications, there appears to be a concerning level of underprescribing of AP for invasive dental procedures. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some dentists might be failing to fully comply with American Heart Association recommendations to provide AP cover for all invasive dental procedures in those at high risk of developing IE complications.

Is it time US dentistry ended its opioid dependence?

BACKGROUND: In 2017, 11.4 million US citizens misused prescription opioids, resulting in 46 overdose deaths daily and a $78.5 billion burden on the economy. Dentists are one of the most frequent prescribers of opioids, and there is concern that dental prescribing is contributing to the opioid crisis. METHODS: A 2019 study showed 22.3% of US dental prescriptions were for opioids compared with 0.6% of dental prescriptions in England where nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen accounted for most analgesic prescriptions. This observation prompted a review of international analgesic prescribing habits and of the advantages and disadvantages of opioids and NSAIDs for treating dental pain. RESULTS: US opioid prescribing far exceeded that in other countries where NSAIDs accounted for most dental analgesic prescribing. Furthermore, results from reviews published respectively in 2018 and 2016 help confirm that NSAIDs and NSAID-acetaminophen combinations are as effective as or more effective than opioids for controlling dental pain and cause significantly fewer adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the potential for misuse and evidence that NSAIDs are as effective as opioids and have fewer adverse effects, there is clear patient benefit in avoiding opioids for the prevention or management of dental pain. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A growing preponderance of evidence shows that opioids are not needed for routine oral health care. This article provides an overview of the evidence and outlines possible pain management models to minimize opioid use in dentistry. The purpose is to stimulate debate about this important topic and encourage the development of definitive guidance by professional bodies, health care providers, and state and federal agencies.

Oral antibiotic prescribing by NHS dentists in England 2010-2017.

Introduction Dentists prescribe a significant proportion of all antibiotics, while antimicrobial stewardship aims to minimise antibiotic-prescribing to reduce the risk of developing antibiotic-resistance and adverse drug reactions.Aims To evaluate NHS antibiotic-prescribing practices of dentists in England between 2010-2017.Methods NHS Digital 2010-2017 data for England were analysed to quantify dental and general primary-care oral antibiotic prescribing.Results Dental prescribing accounted for 10.8% of all oral antibiotic prescribing, 18.4% of amoxicillin and 57.0% of metronidazole prescribing in primary care. Amoxicillin accounted for 64.8% of all oral antibiotic prescribing by dentists, followed by metronidazole (28.0%), erythromycin (4.4%), phenoxymethylpenicillin (0.9%), clindamycin (0.6%), co-amoxiclav (0.5%), cephalosporins (0.4%) and tetracyclines (0.3%). Prescriptions by dentists declined during the study period for all antibiotics except for co-amoxiclav. This increase is of concern given the need to restrict co-amoxiclav use to infections where there is no alternative. Dental prescribing of clindamycin, which accounted for 43.9% of primary care prescribing in 2010, accounted for only 14.6% in 2017. Overall oral antibiotic prescribing by dentists fell 24.4% as compared to 14.8% in all of primary care.Conclusions These data suggest dentists have reduced antibiotic prescribing, possibly more than in other areas of primary-care. Nonetheless, opportunities remain for further reduction.

Comparison of Opioid Prescribing by Dentists in the United States and England.

Importance: The United States consumes most of the opioids worldwide despite representing a small portion of the world's population. Dentists are one of the most frequent US prescribers of opioids despite data suggesting that nonopioid analgesics are similarly effective for oral pain. While oral health and dentist use are generally similar between the United States and England, it is unclear how opioid prescribing by dentists varies between the 2 countries. Objective: To compare opioid prescribing by dentists in the United States and England. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of prescriptions for opioids dispensed from outpatient pharmacies and health care settings between January 1 and December 31, 2016, by dentists in the United States and England. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to January 2019. Exposures: Opioids prescribed by dentists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion and prescribing rates of opioid prescriptions. Results: In 2016, the proportion of prescriptions written by US dentists that were for opioids was 37 times greater than the proportion written by English dentists. In all, 22.3% of US dental prescriptions were opioids (11.4 million prescriptions) compared with 0.6% of English dental prescriptions (28 082 prescriptions) (difference, 21.7%; 95% CI, 13.8%-32.1%; P < .001). Dentists in the United States also had a higher number of opioid prescriptions per 1000 population (35.4 per 1000 US population [95% CI, 25.2-48.7 per 1000 population] vs 0.5 per 1000 England population [95% CI, 0.03-3.7 per 1000 population]) and number of opioid prescriptions per dentist (58.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 44.9-75.0 prescriptions per dentist] vs 1.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 0.2-5.6 prescriptions per dentist]). While the codeine derivative dihydrocodeine was the sole opioid prescribed by English dentists, US dentists prescribed a range of opioids containing hydrocodone (62.3%), codeine (23.2%), oxycodone (9.1%), and tramadol (4.8%). Dentists in the United States also prescribed long-acting opioids (0.06% of opioids prescribed by US dentists [6425 prescriptions]). Long-acting opioids were not prescribed by English dentists. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that in 2016, dentists in the United States prescribed opioids with significantly greater frequency than their English counterparts. Opioids with a high potential for abuse, such as oxycodone, were frequently prescribed by US dentists but not prescribed in England. These results illustrate how 1 source of opioids differs substantially in the United States vs England. To reduce dental opioid prescribing in the United States, dentists could adopt measures similar to those used in England, including national guidelines for treating dental pain that emphasize prescribing opioids conservatively.

Longitudinal antibiotic prescribing trends among US dental specialists within a pharmacy benefits manager, 2013 through 2015.

BACKGROUND: Reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions (Rxs) is a major quality improvement initiative in the United States. Tracking antibiotic prescribing trends is 1 method of assessing improvement in antibiotic prescribing. The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal antibiotic prescribing practices among dental specialists. METHODS: This was a retrospective ecological longitudinal trend study. The authors calculated monthly systemic antibiotic Rx counts, and rates per 100,000 beneficiaries, from a pharmacy benefits manager in the United States from 2013 through 2015. The authors calculated average annual antibiotic Rx rates (AARs) for the 3-year study period. The authors used a quasi-Poisson regression model to analyze antibiotic Rx trends. The authors quantified seasonal trends, when present, via peak-to-trough ratios (PTTRs). RESULTS: Dental specialists prescribed 2.4 million antibiotics to the cohort of 38 million insurance beneficiaries during the 3-year study period (AAR = 2,086 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Oral and maxillofacial surgeons prescribed the most antibiotics (1,172,104 Rxs; AAR = 1,018 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), followed by periodontists (527,038 Rxs; AAR = 457 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), and endodontists (447,362 Rxs; AAR = 388 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Longitudinal antibiotic prescribing trends were stable among all dental specialties in the regression models (P > .05). The authors observed substantial seasonal variation in antibiotic Rxs in 2 specialties: pediatric dentistry (PTTR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.25) and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (PTTR, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.71), with the highest rates of antibiotic Rxs in the spring and winter. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing practices for dental specialists remained stable. The authors observed seasonal trends in 2 specialties. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Public health efforts are needed improve antibiotic prescribing among dental specialties.

Antibiotics for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, symptomatic apical periodontitis, and localized acute apical abscess: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use. TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.

Assessment of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among a large cohort of general dentists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess dental antibiotic prescribing trends over time, to quantify the number and types of antibiotics dentists prescribe inappropriately, and to estimate the excess health care costs of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with the use of a large cohort of general dentists in the United States. METHODS: We used a quasi-Poisson regression model to analyze antibiotic prescriptions trends by general dentists between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, with the use of data from Express Scripts Holding Company, a large pharmacy benefits manager. We evaluated antibiotic duration and appropriateness for general dentists. Appropriateness was evaluated by reviewing the antibiotic prescribed and the duration of the prescription. RESULTS: Overall, the number and rate of antibiotic prescriptions prescribed by general dentists remained stable in our cohort. During the 3-year study period, approximately 14% of antibiotic prescriptions were deemed inappropriate, based on the antibiotic prescribed, antibiotic treatment duration, or both indicators. The quasi-Poisson regression model, which adjusted for number of beneficiaries covered, revealed a small but statistically significant decrease in the monthly rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions by 0.32% (95% confidence interval, 0.14% to 0.50%; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall antibiotic prescribing practices among general dentists in this cohort remained stable over time. The rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions by general dentists decreased slightly over time. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: From these authors' definition of appropriate antibiotic prescription choice and duration, inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are common (14% of all antibiotic prescriptions) among general dentists. Further analyses with the use of chart review, administrative data sets, or other approaches are needed to better evaluate antibiotic prescribing practices among dentists.

An evaluation of dental antibiotic prescribing practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing practices among general dentists and dental specialists in the United States remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare prescribing practices across dental specialties, evaluate the duration of antibiotics dentists prescribed, and determine variation in antibiotic selection among dentists. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of dental care provider specialties linked to deidentified antibiotic claims data from a large pharmacy benefits manager during the 2015 calendar year. RESULTS: As a group, general dentists and dental specialists were responsible for more than 2.9 million antibiotic prescriptions, higher than levels for several other medical and allied health care provider specialties. Antibiotic treatment duration generally was prolonged and commonly included broad-spectrum agents, such as amoxicillin clavulanate and clindamycin. Although amoxicillin was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic among all dental specialties, there was substantial variation among other antibiotics each specialty selected. The most common antibiotic treatment durations were 7 and 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study's results demonstrate that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics for prolonged periods and often use broad-spectrum antibiotics. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of these antibiotic prescribing patterns. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The clinically significant variation in antibiotic selection and treatment duration identified among all dental specialties in this study population implies that further research and guidance into the treatment of dental infections is necessary to improve and standardize antibiotic prescribing practices.