Concerns regarding increasing antibiotic resistance raise the question of the most appropriate oral antibiotic for empirical therapy in dentistry. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the antibiotic choices and regimens used to manage acute dentoalveolar infections and their clinical outcomes. A systematic review was undertaken across three databases. Two authors independently screened and quality-assessed the included studies and extracted the antibiotic regimens used and the clinical outcomes. Searches identified 2994 studies, and after screening and quality assessment, 8 studies were included. In addition to incision and drainage, the antibiotics used to manage dentoalveolar infections included amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefalexin, clindamycin, erythromycin, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, ornidazole and phenoxymethylpenicillin. Regimens varied in dose, frequency and duration. The vast majority of regimens showed clinical success. One study showed that patients who did not receive any antibiotics had the same clinical outcomes as patients who received broad-spectrum antibiotics. The ideal choice, regimen and spectrum of empirical oral antibiotics as adjunctive management of acute dentoalveolar infections are unclear. Given that all regimens showed clinical success, broad-spectrum antibiotics as first-line empirical therapy are unnecessary. Narrow-spectrum agents appear to be as effective in an otherwise healthy individual. This review highlights the effectiveness of dental treatment to address the source of infection as being the primary factor in the successful management of dentoalveolar abscesses. Furthermore, the role of antibiotics is questioned in primary space odontogenic infections, if drainage can be established.

Overall, there is a high level of implant knowledge corresponding to current evidence in the literature. Level of CPD attendance is the most important factor in dentists' willingness to provide more implant therapy options.

Introduction Implant treatments and peri‐implant maintenance continue apace, while the evidence for implant maintenance and home hygiene continues to be developed. Information sources for dental practitioners and patients in peri‐implant health maintenance and disease management are generally not known. This study investigated the implant maintenance topics taught, the discipline backgrounds of convenors and presenters and information delivery methods within implant dentistry teaching in Australia. Materials and methods An online survey was distributed to 56 convenors of implant dentistry and maintenance education programmes in Australia, garnering responses from 24 individuals which outlined 43 different education programmes. Results Lectures were the main delivery method for implant maintenance information across the different course types. Peri‐implant diagnostics were generally taught according to current literature recommendations, but coverage varied in topics where the evidence is yet to be established (eg home hygiene, professional maintenance and implant review). Some educators reported awareness of limitations in their programmes. Conclusion Implant dentistry education programmes in Australia vary widely in teaching implant maintenance, coverage of which should be current and evidence‐based at all education levels. The structure of implant dentistry teaching at the continuing professional development level requires further development.

Background: This study aimed to understand trends in dentists' implant training attendance and correlation to treatment provision. Implant-specific oral hygiene instruction coverage in training programs was investigated. Methods: A cross-sectional web-survey of dentists registered in Australia was conducted. Respondents were asked about their background, implant training history and treatment provision. Results were analysed by implant provision characteristics and graduation decade. Results: Three hundred and three responses from general dental practitioners (GDPs) were received and analysed. The highest implant training levels attained post-graduation were postgraduate non-specialist qualification (7.9% of respondents), continuing professional development (CPD) (73.6%) versus none (18.5%), with differences between implant providers and non-providers (P < 0.001), different graduation decades (P < 0.001) and those restoring implants or performing surgery as well (P < 0.001). University-based CPD was attended less than dental association/society or implant company CPD. Non-providers were significantly less likely to recall implant oral hygiene instruction sources (P < 0.001). Most GDPs (74.9%) provided implant services, with younger GDPs beginning earlier after graduation. About 16% of respondents did not provide implants once established career-wise. Conclusions: Dentists might be providing implant treatments increasingly earlier in their careers. Respondents with more training were significantly more likely to perform more complex procedures, while implant training attendance trends varied by graduation decade.

Background: This study investigated the possible correlations between patient-performed implant hygiene and peri-implant success and disease, as well as patient-reported outcomes, in a community-based cohort. Methods: Fifty-one patients (78 implants) from two private general practices were surveyed on their dental implant treatment history, oral hygiene instructions (OHI) received, home hygiene habits and current implant concerns. Their dentition, plaque/calculus scores and clinical implant parameters were examined. Correlations between hygiene habits, risk factors, implant success and peri-implant disease rates were assessed. Results: Implants had a patient-reported mean time in function of 6.7 years. Floss (74.4%), interdental brushes (IDB) (44.9%) and mouthwash (39.7%) were commonly used, while 7.7% of implants were only cleaned by brushing. Over half (56.4%) of implants fulfilled the success criteria, 61.5% had peri-implant health, 24.4% had mucositis and 7.7% had peri-implantitis. Only brushing (P < 0.001) and detectable plaque/calculus (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with more peri-implant disease. Local prosthetic factors affecting cleaning accessibility significantly reduced implant success (P < 0.001). Patients reported mixed recall of implant OHI, 7.7% of implants were aesthetically unsatisfactory and 9.0% had peri-implant symptoms. Conclusions: Lack of interproximal cleaning and the presence of plaque/calculus were significantly associated with periimplant disease in a community-based general practice setting, and patients reported mixed recall of OHI.