Recent infective endocarditis research findings suggest dentists prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients having a bicuspid aortic valve or mitral valve prolapse.

BACKGROUND: The scientific validity of the European Society of Cardiology's (ESC) infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines limiting provision of prophylactic antibiotics (AP) only to patients having cardiac anomalies (e.g., prosthetic valves) believed to place them at "high risk" of adverse events when undergoing high risk dental procedures (HRDP) is unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of studies conducted between 2017 and 2022 and catalogued in the PubMed database was undertaken to ascertain if this edict was associated with changes in IE incidence, development of infection in unprotected cardiac anomalies, developing infection and resultant adverse clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Retrieved were 19 published manuscripts, however of these, 16 were excluded because they did not bare upon the issues of concern. Among the three studies eligible for review were those in the Netherlands, Spain, and England. The results of the Dutch study denoted a significant increase in the incidence of IE cases over the projected historical trend (rate ratio: 1327, 95% CI 1.205-1.462; p<0.001) after the introduction of the ESC guidelines. The findings from the Spanish study evidenced the uniquely high in-hospital IE associated fatality rates suffered by patients having bicuspid aortic valves (BAV); 5.6% or mitral valve prolapse (MVP); 10%. The British study provided evidence that the incidence of fatal IE infection was significantly greater among an "intermediate risk" cohort of patients, (a group likely including those with BAC and MVP for which the ESC guidelines don't recommend AP), than among "high risk" patients (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients having either a BAV or MVP are at significant risk of developing IE and suffering serious sequelae including death. The ESC guidelines must reclassify these specific cardiac anomalies into the "high risk" category so that AP are recognized as being needed prior to provision of HRDP.

Three-dimensional validation of the impact of the quantity of teeth or tooth parts on the morphological difference between twin dentitions.

BACKGROUND: The number of teeth involved in cases of bite-mark analysis is generally fewer in comparison to the number of teeth available for cases of dental identification. This decreases the amount of information available and can hamper the distinction between bite suspects. The opposite is true in cases of dental identification and the assumption is that more teeth contribute to a higher degree of specificity and the possibility of identification in these cases. Despite being broadly accepted in forensic dentistry, this hypothesis has never been scientifically tested. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to assess the impact of the quantity of teeth or tooth parts on morphological differences in twin dentitions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 344 dental casts collected from 86 pairs of twins was used. The dental casts were digitized using an automated motion device (XCAD 3D® (XCADCAM Technology®, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and were imported as three-dimensional dental model images (3D-DMI) in Geomagic Studio® (3D Systems®, Rock Hill, SC, USA) software package. Sub samples were established based on the quantity of teeth and tooth parts studied. Pair wise morphological comparisons between the corresponding twin siblings were established and quantified. RESULTS: Increasing the quantity of teeth and tooth parts resulted in an increase of morphological difference between twin dentitions. More evident differences were observed comparing anterior vs. entire dentitions (p < 0.05) and complete vs. partial anterior dentitions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dental identifications and bite-mark analysis must include all the possibly related dental information to reach optimal comparison outcomes.