Rates and predictors of exposure to Legionella pneumophila in the United States among dental practitioners: 2002 through 2012

Background

In this study, the authors compared the odds of exposure to Legionella pneumophila among currently active dental practitioners with that of nonpractitioners and evaluated demographic and clinical practice predictors of exposure.

Intimate partner violence screening in the dental setting: Results of a nationally representative survey

Background

The dental setting is a potential venue for identifying patients experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). The study objective was to assess dentists’ current practices and attitudes about IPV screening.

Dental procedures and subsequent prosthetic joint infections: findings from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

BackgroundThe publication of the 2009 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons’ (AAOS’) guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis after joint replacement (arthroplasty) has renewed debate concerning appropriate prophylaxis for dental patients. The authors examined an administrative data set to assess whether dental procedures were associated with prosthetic joint infections (PJIs).MethodsUsing data for the years 1997 through 2006 from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), the authors identified participants who had undergone total joint arthroplasty and those who had experienced a PJI. They explored associations between dental procedures and subsequent PJIs by using time-to-event analyses (N = 1,000). A nested case-control study included case participants who had had PJIs (n = 42) and matched control participants who had had total arthroplasty but had no PJIs (n = 126). The authors calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs).ResultsControl participants (people without PJIs) were more likely than were case participants (those with PJIs) to have undergone an invasive dental procedure, though this trend was not statistically significant in either the time-to-event analysis (HR = 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.18–3.39) or the case-control analysis (OR = 0.56; 95 percent CI, 0.18–1.74). Only four of 42 case participants had undergone an invasive dental procedure in the 90 days before the infection occurred. Consideration of all dental procedures yielded similar results.ConclusionsDental procedures were not associated significantly with subsequent risk for PJIs, although this study's power was somewhat low. The clinical importance of prophylactic antibiotics in dentistry for patients who have undergone joint arthroplasty, therefore, may be questioned.Clinical ImplicationsThese results support the view that the 2009 AAOS Information Statement on antibiotic prophylaxis for people with prosthetic joints should be reconsidered for patients in that population who are receiving oral health care.     

The relationship between education debt and career choices in professional programs: The case of dentistry

Background

The authors examined the relationship between education debt and career choice, particularly dentists’ decisions to specialize, participate in public health insurance programs, and join dental management service organizations (DMSOs).

COVID-19 among dentists in the United States: A 6-month longitudinal report of accumulative prevalence and incidence

BackgroundIn 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association released COVID-19 infection control interim guidance for US dentists, advising the use of optimal personal protection equipment during aerosol-generating procedures. The aim of this longitudinal study was to determine the cumulative prevalence and incidence rates of COVID-19 among dentists and to assess their level of engagement in specific infection control practices.MethodsUS dentists were invited to participate in a monthly web-based survey from June through November 2020. Approximately one-third of initial respondents (n = 785) participated in all 6 surveys, and they were asked about COVID-19 testing received, symptoms experienced, and infection prevention procedures followed in their primary practice.ResultsOver a 6-month period, the cumulative COVID-19 infection prevalence rate was 2.6%, representing 57 dentists who ever received a diagnosis of COVID-19. The incidence rates ranged from 0.2% through 1.1% each month. The proportion of dentists tested for COVID-19 increased over time, as did the rate of dentists performing aerosol-generating procedures. Enhanced infection prevention and control strategies in the dental practice were reported by nearly every participant monthly, and rates of personal protection equipment optimization, such as changing masks after each patient, dropped over time.ConclusionsUS dentists continue to show a high level of adherence to enhanced infection control procedures in response to the ongoing pandemic, resulting in low rates of cumulative prevalence of COVID-19. Dentists are showing adherence to a strict protocol for enhanced infection control, which should help protect their patients, their dental team members, and themselves.Practical ImplicationsCOVID-19 infections among practicing dentists will likely remain low if dentists continue to adhere to guidance.     

Benefits and harms associated with analgesic medications used in the management of acute dental pain: An overview of systematic reviews

Background

Effective pain management is a priority in dental practice. Government and private agencies highlight the need to provide optimal pain relief, balancing potential benefits and harms of both opioid and nonopioid analgesic agents. The purpose of this study is to summarize the available evidence on the benefits and harms of analgesic agents, focusing on preexisting systematic reviews.

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

BackgroundAn 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 ReviewedThe 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.ResultsThe 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 ImplicationsEvidence 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.     

Acceptance among and impact on dental practitioners and patients of American Heart Association recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis

BackgroundThe 2007 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for the prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) called for a major reduction in the number of patients recommended for antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) and redefined the dental procedures considered to put these patients at risk of acquiring the infection. The purpose of the authors' study was to determine the acceptance of these changes among and the impact of the changes on dentists and their patients.MethodsThe authors sent a survey to a random sample of 5,500 dentists in the United States.ResultsNinety-five percent of the 878 respondents indicated that they saw patients who receive AP. More than 75 percent were either satisfied or very satisfied with the AHA guidelines, and the respondents indicated that they believed almost three-quarters of their patients also were pleased. Seventy percent of dentists, however, had patients who took antibiotics before a dental procedure even though the guidelines no longer recommend it.ConclusionsAcceptance of the 2007 guidelines appears to be high, but controversy remains. Additional scientific data are needed to resolve these issues.Practical ImplicationsThe 2007 AHA guidelines have greatly simplified the identification of patients who need AP for dental procedures, given that, in general, far fewer people with cardiac abnormalities are considered to be at risk as a result of invasive procedures. Some physicians, however, continue to prescribe antibiotics for some patients whom the AHA no longer considers to need them. Patients also may choose to continue this practice themselves. There is ongoing controversy surrounding this common clinical question in dental practice, and the next guidelines from the AHA may change on the basis of data from future clinical studies.     

Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BackgroundThis article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for use of pit-and-fissure sealants developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The panel addressed the following clinical questions: Under what circumstances should sealants be placed to prevent caries? Does placing sealants over early (noncavitated) lesions prevent progression of the lesion? Are there conditions that favor the placement of resin-based versus. glass ionomer cement sealants in terms of retention or caries prevention? Are there any techniques that could improve sealants&;apos; retention and effectiveness in caries prevention?Types of Studies ReviewedStaff of the ADA Division of Science conducted a MEDLINE search to identify systematic reviews and clinical studies published after the identified systematic reviews. At the panel&;apos;s request, the ADA Division of Science staff conducted additional searches for clinical studies related to specific topics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provided unpublished systematic reviews that since have been accepted for publication.ResultsThe expert panel developed clinical recommendations for each clinical question. The panel concluded that sealants are effective in caries prevention and that sealants can prevent the progression of early noncavitated carious lesions.Clinical ImplicationsThese recommendations are presented as a resource to be considered in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner&;apos;s professional judgment and the patient&;apos;s needs and preferences. The evidence indicates that sealants can be used effectively to prevent the initiation and progression of dental caries.     

Advancing infection control in dental care settings: Factors associated with dentists' implementation of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Background and OverviewThe authors set out to identify factors associated with implementation by U.S. dentists of four practices first recommended in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Health-Care Settings—2003.MethodsIn 2008, the authors surveyed a stratified random sample of 6,825 U.S. dentists. The response rate was 49 percent. The authors gathered data regarding dentists' demographic and practice characteristics, attitudes toward infection control, sources of instruction regarding the guidelines and knowledge about the need to use sterile water for surgical procedures. Then they assessed the impact of those factors on the implementation of four recommendations: having an infection control coordinator, maintaining dental unit water quality, documenting percutaneous injuries and using safer medical devices, such as safer syringes and scalpels. The authors conducted bivariate analyses and proportional odds modeling.ResultsResponding dentists in 34 percent of practices had implemented none or one of the four recommendations, 40 percent had implemented two of the recommendations and 26 percent had implemented three or four of the recommendations. The likelihood of implementation was higher among dentists who acknowledged the importance of infection control, had practiced dentistry for less than 30 years, had received more continuing dental education credits in infection control, correctly identified more surgical procedures that require the use of sterile water, worked in larger practices and had at least three sources of instruction regarding the guidelines. Dentists with practices in the South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic or East South Central U.S. Census divisions were less likely to have complied.ConclusionsImplementation of the four recommendations varied among U.S. dentists. Strategies targeted at raising awareness of the importance of infection control, increasing continuing education requirements and developing multiple modes of instruction may increase implementation of current and future Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.The authors thank Jon Ruesch, who when this study was conducted was the director, Survey Center, American Dental Association, Chicago, for his effort in the collection of the data for this research project. Mr. Ruesch is now retired.     

Focus on Fluorides: Update on the Use of Fluoride for the Prevention of Dental Caries

Improving the efficacy of fluoride therapies reduces dental caries and lowers fluoride exposure.BackgroundFluoride is delivered to the teeth systemically or topically to aid in the prevention of dental caries. Systemic fluoride from ingested sources is in blood serum and can be deposited only in teeth that are forming in children. Topical fluoride is from sources such as community water, processed foods, beverages, toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, foams, and varnishes. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) have proposed changes in their long standing recommendations for the amount of fluoride in community drinking water in response to concerns about an increasing incidence of dental fluorosis in children. Current research is focused on the development of strategies to improve fluoride efficacy. The purpose of this update is to inform the reader about new research and policies related to the use of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries.MethodsReviews of the current research and recent evidence based systematic reviews on the topics of fluoride are presented. Topics discussed include: updates on community water fluoridation research and policies; available fluoride in dentifrices; fluoride varnish compositions, use, and recommendations; and other fluoride containing dental products. This update provides insights into current research and discusses proposed policy changes for the use of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries.ConclusionsThe dental profession is adjusting their recommendations for fluoride use based on current observations of the halo effect and subsequent outcomes. The research community is focused on improving the efficacy of fluoride therapies thus reducing dental caries and lowering the amount of fluoride required for efficacy.