Chemoprophylaxis of prosthetic joint patients during dental treatment: a decision-utility analysis.

A decision-analytic model and a cost effectiveness analysis was performed on 1 million hypothetic prosthetic joint patients undergoing dental treatment, to determine the most cost-effective strategy to prevent late prosthetic joint infections. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year saved (QALY) was determined for three preventive strategies: no prophylaxis, oral penicillin, and oral cephalexin. The UCLA Pain-Walking-Function-Activity Scale was used to obtain quality-of-life adjustments (utility assessment) for the study population. Costs were derived from 70 patients hospitalized between July 1, 1982, and June 30, 1986, at the UCLA Center for Health Sciences. The most cost-effective preventive strategy was the no prophylaxis alternative ($196,500/QALY). However, by recommending a 1-day strategy of oral cephalexin only to those dental patients at high risk for late prosthetic joint infections rather than a 3-day regimen to all patients, the cost effectiveness improved from $1.1 million/QALY to $446,100/QALY while maintaining a low risk of death (0.38 deaths per 10(6) dental visits).     

Patients with prosthetic joints: Are they at risk when receiving invasive dental procedures?

Most prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are due to wound contamination at the time of surgery. Some infections occur due to the hematogenous spread of bacteria from distant sites of infection. A review of the literature fails to associate PJI with transient bacteremias from invasive dental procedures. Several authors have described conditions which, they believe, render patients with prosthetic joints more at risk for infection. Prosthetic joint patients with these "high risk" conditions have the same types of infecting organisms as other patients with PJI. This indicates that the infecting bacteria are from wound contamination or distant sites of infection and not related to dental procedure bacteremias. Based on this review, antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated for patients with prosthetic joints when receiving invasive dental procedures, since there is no proven benefit and there are known risks involved with the use of antibiotics. However, the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), in an advisory statement, suggest prophylaxis for "high risk" patients. The ADA and AAOS recommend a single dose of amoxicillin, cephradine, or clindamycin when prophylaxis is selected. The dentist is ultimately responsible for making treatment recommendations for his or her patients.     

Update on prosthetic joints,dental treatment,and antibiotic prophylaxis

At this time, all dentists and physicians should be very familiar with the 1997 ADA/AAOS antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations for joint prosthesis patients who are undergoing dental treatment. The guidelines identify physical conditions that place joint replacement patients at the highest risk for joint sepsis. They also stratify dental procedures into higher-risk and lower-risk categories. Combining these two groupings clarifies the dentist's strategy for antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, which are greatly simplified over previous practices. Of notable importance is the elimination of posttreatment antibiotic dosing, the reduction of the loading dose of antibiotic, and the identification of a large group of joint replacement patients who do not require antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental treatment. Every dentist must use clinical judgment, knowledge of the patient, and consultation with the attending physician to determine the appropriate treatment plan.     

Implant-surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with multiple dental aplasia: a clinical report.

The expanded experience with oral implants and supplementary augmentation techniques has opened new possibilities for treating patients with oligodontia or anodontia with fixed prostheses. A problem in treating such patients is the need to place implants in growing maxillae or mandibles, as many of these patients are children or adolescents. When implant treatment is postponed until the patient is full grown, dysfunctions become manifest, which necessitates extensive surgical measures to achieve a fixed prosthetic restoration. This report illustrates the problems associated with different concepts for the treatment of multiple aplasia with implants. The results are based on the findings of 22 patients with oligodontia who underwent surgical treatment and were followed over a period of 5 years. Two controversially treated cases are presented.     

Factors related to prosthetic restoration in patients with shortened dental arches: a multicentre study

The aim of this study was to identify the factors related to prosthetic restoration in patients with shortened dental arches (SDA). SDA patients with 2-12 missing occlusal units were consecutively enrolled from seven university-based dental hospitals in Japan. Of the 145 subjects (mean age; 63·4 years), 41% chose no treatment and 59% sought to replace their edentulous spaces with removable partial dentures or implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Restoration decisions were related to tooth loss patterns. Only 3% of subjects missing just second molar(s) sought to receive prosthetic treatment, while the percentage increased to 58% in subjects who were missing first and second molars and 93% in subjects missing premolar(s). Logistic regression analyses found that young age, increased number of missing occlusal units, asymmetric arch and presence of chewing complaint were significant predictors for prosthetic restoration (P<0·05). Increased number of missing occlusal units and asymmetric arch were significant predictors for the presence of chewing complaint (P<0·05). These results suggest that perceived impairment of chewing ability owing to missing occlusal units is a critical factor for prosthetic restoration in SDA patients.     

Effect of prosthetic restoration on masticatory function in patients with shortened dental arches: a multicentre study

The aim of this multicentre study was to investigate the effect of prosthetic restoration for missing posterior teeth on mastication in patients with shortened dental arches (SDAs). Partially dentate patients who had an intact teeth in anterior region and missed distal molar(s) (2–12 missing occlusal units) classified as Kennedy Class I or Class II were recruited from seven university‐based dental hospitals in Japan. Of the 125 subjects who underwent baseline (pre‐treatment) and follow‐up/post‐treatment evaluation, 53 chose no replacement of missing teeth and 72 chose treatment with removable partial dentures (n = 53) or implant‐supported fixed partial dentures (n = 19). Objective masticatory performance (MP) was evaluated using a gummy jelly test. Perception of chewing ability (CA) was rated using a food intake questionnaire. In the no‐treatment group, mean MP and CA scores at baseline were similar to those at follow‐up evaluation (P > 0·05). In the treatment group, mean MP after treatment was significantly greater than the pre‐treatment mean MP (P < 0·05). However, the mean perceived CA in the treatment groups was similar at pre‐ and post‐treatment (P > 0·05). In a subgroup analysis of subjects in the treatment group, subjects with lower pre‐treatment CA showed a significant CA increase after treatment (P = 0·004), but those with higher pre‐treatment CA showed a significant decrease in CA (P = 0·001). These results suggest that prosthetic restoration for SDAs may benefit objective masticatory performance in patients needing replacement of missing posterior teeth, but the benefit in subjective chewing ability seems to be limited in subjects with perceived impairment in chewing ability before treatment.     

A systematic review of prosthetic restoration in patients with shortened dental arches

The literature regarding the effect of prosthetic restoration in patients having distal extension edentulous space in posterior area (shortened dental arch: SDA) is reviewed in the following article. Information retrieval followed a systematic approach using PubMed. Articles in English published between 1966 and March 2011 describing the outcome of treatment with various prostheses were evaluated. From the search results of 98 articles, 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. Treatment with removable partial dentures (RPDs) improved masticatory function, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). However, no significant difference was found in the outcomes between patients with RPDs and with cantilever fixed partial dentures (CFPDs). Caries developed more frequently after treatment with RPDs than CFPDs. The time to survival for CFPDs was not longer than that for RPDs, while more visits to maintain RPDs were required than for CFPDs. No significant difference was found in masticatory function, OHRQoL, and occlusal stability between patients with RPDs and those without restoration of missing molars. Consequently, treatment with RPDs for SDA seems to be less advantageous than CFPDs or no restoration for missing molars. Further research is required to validate treatment with implant-supported fixed partial dentures for SDA.