This series provides an overview of current thinking in the more relevant areas of oral medicine for primary care practitioners, written by the authors while they were holding the Presidencies of the European Association for Oral Medicine and the British Society for Oral Medicine, respectively. A book containing additional material will be published. The series gives the detail necessary to assist the primary dental clinical team caring for patients with oral complaints that may be seen in general dental practice. Space precludes inclusion of illustrations of uncommon or rare disorders, or discussion of disorders affecting the hard tissues. Approaching the subject mainly by the symptomatic approach -as it largely relates to the presenting complaint -was considered to be a more helpful approach for GDPs rather than taking a diagnostic category approach. The clinical aspects of the relevant disorders are discussed, including a brief overview of the aetiology, detail on the clinical features and how the diagnosis is made. Guidance on management and when to refer is also provided, along with relevant websites which offer further detail.

The effectiveness of pain relieving treatments given for acute dental pain has been evaluated after 24 hours in 172 patients who presented to a dental hospital emergency department. Patients were contacted by telephone the day after attendance and graded their pain on a scale from 1 (no pain) to 5 (pain much worse). The mean pain scores for each diagnosis of cause of pain were calculated and related to the treatment given. Some 76% of patients were in pain due to the ravages of dental caries of periodontal disease. Overall, 87% received marked or total pain relief and this appeared to depend upon decompression of inflamed tissue. Oral administration of antimicrobial drugs alone produced little or no pain relief within 24 hours and anti-inflammatory analgesics offer poor pain control in these circumstances.

Despite the controversy about the risk of individuals developing bacterial endocarditis of oral origin, numerous Expert Committees in different countries continue to publish prophylactic regimens for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis secondary to dental procedures. In this paper, we analyze the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of bacteremia following dental manipulations and in the prevention of bacterial endocarditis (in both animal models and human studies). Antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines remain consensus-based, and there is scientific evidence of the efficacy of amoxicillin in the prevention of bacteremia following dental procedures, although the results reported do not confirm the efficacy of other recommended antibiotics. The majority of studies on experimental models of bacterial endocarditis have verified the efficacy of antibiotics administered after the induction of bacteremia, confirming the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in later stages in the development of bacterial endocarditis. There is no scientific evidence that prophylaxis with penicillin is effective in reducing bacterial endocarditis secondary to dental procedures in patients considered to be "at risk". It has been suggested that there is a high risk of severe allergic reactions secondary to prophylactically administered penicillins, but, in reality, very few cases have been reported in the literature. It has been demonstrated that antibiotic prophylaxis could contribute to the development of bacterial resistance, but only after the administration of several consecutive doses. Future research on bacterial endocarditis prophylactic protocols should involve the re-evaluation of the time and route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis, and a search for alternative antimicrobials.