Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This review is the second update of the original version first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (26 February 2018 (discontinued)), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (23 November 2022), Embase Ovid (23 November 2022), CINAHL EBSCO (25 November 2022) and two trials registries, and performed a grey literature search. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage, or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used a fixed-effect model in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to request missing information. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: There was one new completed trial on this topic since the last update in 2018. In total, we included three trials with 134 participants. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess One trial (72 participants) compared the effects of a single preoperative dose of clindamycin versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement and filling) and analgesics to adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis. We assessed this study at low risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling across trial arms at any time point assessed. The median values for pain (numerical rating scale 0 to 10) were 3.0 in both groups at 24 hours (P = 0.219); 1.0 in the antibiotic group versus 2.0 in the control group at 48 hours (P = 0.242); and 0 in both groups at 72 hours and seven days (P = 0.116 and 0.673, respectively). The risk ratio of swelling when comparing preoperative antibiotic to placebo was 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.56; P = 0.41). The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was low. Two trials (62 participants) compared the effects of a seven-day course of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (total or partial endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. Participants in both trials also received oral analgesics. We assessed one study at high risk of bias and the other at unclear risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling at any time point assessed. The mean difference for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3, where 0 was no pain) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The standardised mean difference for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes in this comparison was very low. Adverse effects, as reported in two studies, were diarrhoea (one participant in the placebo group), fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group) and dizziness preoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group). Systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess We found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that preoperative clindamycin for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis results in little to no difference in participant-reported pain or swelling at any of the time points included in this review when provided with chemo-mechanical endodontic debridement and filling under local anaesthesia. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of postoperative phenoxymethylpenicillin for adults with localised apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided with chemo-mechanical debridement and oral analgesics. We found no studies which compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.

The implications of a cost-of-living crisis for oral health and dental care.

A cost-of-living crisis is currently affecting the UK. While this has been explored in terms of the effect on dental practice, the dental implications for patients and for population oral health have not received sufficient attention. This opinion piece discusses how: i) financial pressures leading to hygiene poverty may limit the ability to afford the basic products necessary to maintain oral hygiene; ii) food insecurity is associated with a diet high in sugar and lacking in appropriate nutrition; and iii) reduced disposable income may limit the ability to attend and successfully engage with dental care. The impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the lowest paid members of the dental team is also considered.The most common dental diseases are closely correlated with social and economic deprivation and the points discussed here act as a reminder of how the present financial circumstances have significant potential to widen oral health inequalities.

A qualitative exploration of decisions about dental recall intervals - Part 1: attitudes of NHS general dental practitioners to NICE guideline CG19 on the interval between oral health reviews.

Introduction The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline CG19 recommends that the intervals between oral health reviews should be tailored to patients' disease risk. However, evidence suggests that most patients still attend at six-monthly intervals.Aim To explore facilitators and barriers to the implementation of CG19 in general dental practice.Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 NHS general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Wales, UK. Transcripts were thematically analysed.Results Dentists described integrating information on clinical risk, patients' social and dental history, and professional judgement when making decisions about recall interval. Although most GDPs reported routinely using risk-based recall intervals, a number of barriers exist to recall intervals at the extremes of the NICE recommendations. Many practitioners were unwilling to extend recall intervals to 24 months, even for the lowest-risk patients. Conversely, dentists described how it could be challenging to secure the agreement of high-risk patients to three-month recalls. In addition, time and workload pressures, the need to meet contractual obligations, pressure from contracting organisations and the fear of litigation also influenced the implementation of risk-based recalls.Conclusions Although awareness of the NICE Guideline CG19 was high, there is a need to explore how risk-based recalls may be best supported through contractual mechanisms.

A qualitative exploration of decisions about dental recall intervals - part 2: perspectives of dentists and patients on the role of shared decision making in dental recall decisions.

Introduction Patients are sensitive to both the frequency and costs of dental recall visits. Shared decision making (SDM) is a principle of patient-centred care, advocated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and policymakers, whereby joint decisions are made between clinicians and patients.Aims To explore NHS dentists' and patients' attitudes towards SDM in decisions about recall interval.Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 NHS patients and 25 NHS general dental practitioners in Wales, UK. Transcripts were thematically analysed.Results While many patients would be happy to accept changes to their recall interval, most wanted to be seen at least annually. Most patients were willing to be guided by their dentist in decisions about recall interval, as long as consideration was given to issues such as time, travel and cost. This contrasted with the desire to actively participate in decisions about operative treatment. Although the dentists' understanding of SDM varied, practitioners considered it important to involve patients in decisions about their care. However, dentists perceived that time, patient anxiety and concerns about potential adverse outcomes were barriers to the use of SDM.Conclusions Since there is uncertainty about the most clinically effective and cost-effective dental recall strategy, patient preference may play a role in these decisions.

Patients' reasons for consulting a GP when experiencing a dental problem: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There are approximately 380 000 dental consultations in UK general practice every year. AIM: To explore the reasons why patients may consult a GP rather than a dentist when experiencing problems with their teeth or gums. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative semi-structured interview study with adults who had consulted a UK GP with a dental problem in the previous 12 months. METHOD: Participants were recruited via print and social media; internet adverts; HealthWise Wales, the Welsh national population research cohort; and word of mouth. In total, 39 telephone interviews were conducted, and transcripts thematically analysed. RESULTS: Participants' consultation behaviour was influenced by their interpretation of their symptoms; their perceptions of the scope of practice of primary care practitioners; the comparative ease of navigating medical and dental care systems; previous experiences of dental care, including dental anxiety and dissatisfaction with prior treatment; and willingness and ability to pay for dental care. CONCLUSION: There are several reasons why patients may consult a GP with a dental problem. Effective interventions will need to break down the barriers preventing access to dental care. Accessible public-facing information on where to seek care for dental problems is required, and general practice teams should be able to signpost patients who present with dental problems, if appropriate. Dental providers should also be encouraged to maintain timely access to urgent care for their patients.

Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.

Antibiotic Guardians: the Role of the Dental Profession.

The increasing emergence of antibiotic resistance is a major international public health problem. As a consequence, it is essential that steps are taken to conserve the effectiveness of existing antimicrobial agents. Consumption of antibiotics is the prime contributor to the development of resistance. General dental practitioners write almost 1 out of 10 prescriptions for antibiotics in primary care within the UK and therefore the prudent prescribing of antibiotics in dentistry has never been more vital. This paper outlines the impact of antimicrobial resistance on modern healthcare, describes the current use of antibiotics in general dental practice, and recommends pragmatic ways in which dental practitioners can evaluate and optimize their prescribing. Clinical relevance: Dental professionals have a responsibility to both their patients and the wider community to prescribe antibiotics appropriately.

Dental consultations in UK general practice and antibiotic prescribing rates: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of consulting for dental problems in general medical practice, and antibiotic prescribing associated with these consultations, is poorly described. AIM: To describe consultation rates and antibiotic use for dental problems in UK general medical practice, and explore factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for dental conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of general practice patient records in the UK. METHOD: All dental consultations between 2004 and 2013 were identified. The main outcome was the prescription of an antibiotic during a dental consultation. Multilevel logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with antibiotic prescription. RESULTS: In all, 288 169 dental consultations were included in the cohort. The average rate of dental consultations was 6.06 consultations per 1000 patient-years. Rates of dental consultation decreased from 6.84 consultations per 1000 patient-years in 2008, to 4.23 consultations per 1000 patient-years in 2013. Consultation rates were higher among females than males and highest in patients aged 20-29 years. An antibiotic was prescribed in 57.1% of consultations. Significant predictors (P<0.001) of antibiotic prescribing included: patient middle age, male sex, and previous consultations for tooth-related problems. Antibiotics were more likely to be prescribed during consultations in December (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 1.24, P<0.001, reference month: June) and on a Monday (OR 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.13, P<0.001) or a Friday (OR 1.15, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.18, P<0.001, reference day: Wednesday). CONCLUSION: Consultation rates for dental problems in UK general practice are relatively low but more than half result in the prescription of an antibiotic. This raises concerns about patient morbidity and contributions to antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotic prescribing in UK general dental practice: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which antibiotic prescribing in general dental practice conforms to clinical guidelines and to describe factors associated with antibiotic prescription in the absence of spreading infection or systemic involvement. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of the management of adult patients with acute dental conditions by General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) in Wales, UK. Clinical information on the management of patients was compared to clinical and prescribing guidelines published by the Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme and the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK). Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify patient, practitioner and consultation characteristics predictive of antibiotic prescribing in the absence of infection. RESULTS: Antibiotics were prescribed to 57.4% of 568 patients. Over half of antibiotics (65.6%) were prescribed in situations where there was no evidence of spreading infection, and 70.6% were used without the provision of an operative intervention. Only 19.0% of antibiotics were prescribed in situations where their use was indicated by clinical guidelines. Factors associated (P < 0.05) with antibiotic prescription in the absence of infection were failure of previous operative treatment (Odds Ratio (OR) 13.57), shortage of clinical time to undertake treatment (OR 10.21), patients who were unable or unwilling to accept operative treatment (OR 4.89), patient requests for antibiotics (OR 3.69) and acute periodontal conditions (OR 3.37). CONCLUSIONS: A high level of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was observed amongst the GDPs studied. Features of the healthcare environment, such as clinical time pressures, and patient-related characteristics, such as expectations for antibiotics and refusal of operative treatment, are associated with antibiotic prescribing in the absence of infection. Individuals responsible for the commissioning and delivery of dental services should seek to develop targeted interventions addressing these issues in order to ensure optimal antimicrobial stewardship within dentistry.

General practitioners' attitudes towards the management of dental conditions and use of antibiotics in these consultations: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to produce an account of the attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) towards the management of dental conditions in general practice, and sought to explore how GPs use antibiotics in the treatment of dental problems. DESIGN: Qualitative study employing semistructured telephone interviews and thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 17 purposively sampled GPs working in Wales, of which 9 were male. The median number of years since graduation was 21. Maximum variation sampling techniques were used to ensure participants represented different Rural-Urban localities, worked in communities with varying levels of deprivation, and had differing lengths of practising career. RESULTS: Most GPs reported regularly managing dental problems, with more socioeconomically deprived patients being particularly prone to consult. Participants recognised that dental problems are not optimally managed in general practice, but had sympathy with patients experiencing dental pain who reported difficulty obtaining an emergency dental consultation. Many GPs considered antibiotics an acceptable first-line treatment for acute dental problems and reported that patients often attended expecting to receive antibiotics. GPs who reported that their usual practice was to prescribe antibiotics were more likely to prioritise patients' immediate needs, whereas clinicians who reported rarely prescribing often did so to encourage patients to consult a dental professional. CONCLUSIONS: The presentation of patients with dental problems presents challenges to GPs who report concerns about their ability to manage such conditions. Despite this, many reported frequently prescribing antibiotics for patients with dental conditions. This may contribute to both patient morbidity and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. This research has identified the need for quantitative data on general practice consultations for dental problems and qualitative research exploring patient perspectives on reasons for consulting. The findings of these studies will inform the design of an intervention to support patients in accessing appropriate care when experiencing dental problems.

Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in primary dental care: reasons and resolutions.

The injudicious use of antibiotics is one of the key contributors to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains. It is therefore imperative that antibiotics are prescribed only when they are likely to result in clinical benefit for a patient. Clinical guidelines have been produced to assist dental practitioners in the appropriate use of antimicrobials. Despite these guidelines, there is evidence that antibiotics are still widely used and misused in the management of acute dental conditions. This article explores the barriers that exist with regard to the implementation of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and discusses some of the interventions that aim to optimise antibiotic prescribing in primary dental care.