Prescribing practices for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joints
© 2020 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals, Inc..
AIMS: With the increasing number of patients with prosthetic joints, recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures to prevent prosthetic joint infections (PJI) have changed.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This survey evaluated dentists' AP practices for patients with prosthetic joints undergoing dental procedures and their familiarity with the American Dental Association Guidelines (ADA CPG) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Appropriate Use Criteria (AAOS AUC). Dentists' attitudes about antibiotic resistance, medical-legal aspects, and adverse effects to using AP were examined. Dentists (n = 574) were familiar (51.2%) with ADA CPG and with the AAOS AUC (25.8%). Familiarity varied according to years since graduation. Female dentists (63.5%) were more likely to be very familiar with the ADA CPG than male dentists (49.5%). Overall, 65.4% of respondents believed that AP is not effective in the prevention of PJI, and 19.4% believed there is enough evidence to support AP. For a healthy patient, 28.9% of dentists would never recommend AP, 44.9% would recommend AP within the first two years since prosthetic joint replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' recommendations for the use of AP varied depending on different factors, including health status of the patient, dental procedure, time elapsed since joint surgery, suggesting that adherence to the ADA CPG and AUC is still challenging.
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2020 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:40 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry - 40(2020), 2 vom: 30. März, Seite 198-205 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Teixeira, Erica C [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
---|
Themen: |
Antibiotic prophylaxis |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 13.03.2020 Date Revised 13.03.2020 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
---|
doi: |
10.1111/scd.12450 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM305629433 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | NLM305629433 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20231225121610.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/scd.12450 |2 doi | |
028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1018.xml |
035 | |a (DE-627)NLM305629433 | ||
035 | |a (NLM)31965592 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Teixeira, Erica C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Prescribing practices for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joints |
264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a Date Completed 13.03.2020 | ||
500 | |a Date Revised 13.03.2020 | ||
500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
520 | |a © 2020 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | ||
520 | |a AIMS: With the increasing number of patients with prosthetic joints, recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures to prevent prosthetic joint infections (PJI) have changed | ||
520 | |a METHODS AND RESULTS: This survey evaluated dentists' AP practices for patients with prosthetic joints undergoing dental procedures and their familiarity with the American Dental Association Guidelines (ADA CPG) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Appropriate Use Criteria (AAOS AUC). Dentists' attitudes about antibiotic resistance, medical-legal aspects, and adverse effects to using AP were examined. Dentists (n = 574) were familiar (51.2%) with ADA CPG and with the AAOS AUC (25.8%). Familiarity varied according to years since graduation. Female dentists (63.5%) were more likely to be very familiar with the ADA CPG than male dentists (49.5%). Overall, 65.4% of respondents believed that AP is not effective in the prevention of PJI, and 19.4% believed there is enough evidence to support AP. For a healthy patient, 28.9% of dentists would never recommend AP, 44.9% would recommend AP within the first two years since prosthetic joint replacement | ||
520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' recommendations for the use of AP varied depending on different factors, including health status of the patient, dental procedure, time elapsed since joint surgery, suggesting that adherence to the ADA CPG and AUC is still challenging | ||
650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
650 | 4 | |a antibiotic prophylaxis | |
650 | 4 | |a joint replacement | |
650 | 4 | |a practice guidelines | |
700 | 1 | |a Warren, John J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a McKernan, Susan C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a McQuistan, Michelle R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Qian, Fang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry |d 1986 |g 40(2020), 2 vom: 30. März, Seite 198-205 |w (DE-627)NLM012892858 |x 1754-4505 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:40 |g year:2020 |g number:2 |g day:30 |g month:03 |g pages:198-205 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/scd.12450 |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 40 |j 2020 |e 2 |b 30 |c 03 |h 198-205 |