Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a significant threat to global health. Antimicrobial stewardship is reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing to counter it. Dentists prescribe ~10% of all antibiotics worldwide, yet up to 90% of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists are inappropriate. The aim of this systematic review was to update a 2017 review evaluating the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions in dental settings, using the international consensus on core outcomes for dental antibiotic stewardship.MethodsSystematic database searches were undertaken in April 2023, of the: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ISRCTN registry databases. Randomised controlled trials (or non‐randomised studies with clearly reported mechanism of group formation and inclusion criteria) of interventions to optimise and/or reduce dental antibiotic prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened for eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE. Meta‐analysis was planned whether the results of studies reported similar outcomes, otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThree eligible studies randomising 2148 participants were included. The interventions were combinations of education, audit and feedback and written behaviour change messages, guideline summary, practice visits and patient leaflets. None of the control groups received an intervention. All three included studies measured the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and two measured the appropriateness of prescribing. None measured patient‐reported or adverse outcomes. Two included studies were assessed as ‘high risk’ and one with ‘low risk’ of bias. There was high‐certainty evidence that audit and personalised feedback with individualised behaviour change messages can be effective. Evidence for in‐person education was low‐certainty. Guideline dissemination alone was ineffective at improving antibiotic prescribing. Due to different outcomes reported, meta‐analysis was inappropriate.ConclusionAlthough various dental antibiotic stewardship interventions have been reported in the literature, none provided high‐certainty evidence of effectiveness and only three have been evaluated using a randomised design. To strengthen the body of evidence, well‐powered, robust, randomised controlled trials are required, with adequate follow‐up, reporting the internationally‐agreed core outcomes and including a parallel process evaluation is recommended.Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023411476)
BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a significant threat to global health. Antimicrobial stewardship is reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing to counter it. Dentists prescribe ~10% of all antibiotics worldwide, yet up to 90% of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists are inappropriate. The aim of this systematic review was to update a 2017 review evaluating the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions in dental settings, using the international consensus on core outcomes for dental antibiotic stewardship.MethodsSystematic database searches were undertaken in April 2023, of the: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ISRCTN registry databases. Randomised controlled trials (or non‐randomised studies with clearly reported mechanism of group formation and inclusion criteria) of interventions to optimise and/or reduce dental antibiotic prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened for eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE. Meta‐analysis was planned whether the results of studies reported similar outcomes, otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThree eligible studies randomising 2148 participants were included. The interventions were combinations of education, audit and feedback and written behaviour change messages, guideline summary, practice visits and patient leaflets. None of the control groups received an intervention. All three included studies measured the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and two measured the appropriateness of prescribing. None measured patient‐reported or adverse outcomes. Two included studies were assessed as ‘high risk’ and one with ‘low risk’ of bias. There was high‐certainty evidence that audit and personalised feedback with individualised behaviour change messages can be effective. Evidence for in‐person education was low‐certainty. Guideline dissemination alone was ineffective at improving antibiotic prescribing. Due to different outcomes reported, meta‐analysis was inappropriate.ConclusionAlthough various dental antibiotic stewardship interventions have been reported in the literature, none provided high‐certainty evidence of effectiveness and only three have been evaluated using a randomised design. To strengthen the body of evidence, well‐powered, robust, randomised controlled trials are required, with adequate follow‐up, reporting the internationally‐agreed core outcomes and including a parallel process evaluation is recommended.Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023411476)
Background: The non-specific prescription of antibiotics, especially in dentistry, contributes to the global problem of antimicrobial resistance and highlights the need for education on the proper use and serious consequences of overprescribing these drugs. The main objective of this study is to assess and evaluate antibiotic knowledge and prescribing patterns in dental practice in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, focusing on understanding the rationale for prescribing, adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and dentists’ awareness of antibiotic resistance. Methods: A total of 795 dentists participated in this electronic cross-sectional survey (Croatia N = 336, Bosnia and Herzegovina N = 176, and Serbia N = 283). The study utilized a self-structured questionnaire to collect data on various aspects of antibiotic use, including knowledge, prescribing practices, awareness of guidelines, and demographic and professional information about dentists. Data analysis included the Mann–Whitney test, the Kruskal–Wallis test with post hoc analysis, and chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The overall score for the participants’ knowledge of antibiotics was 6.40 ± 1.40 out of a maximum of eight points, which indicates a generally good level of knowledge among dentists. Factors such as gender, specialty, and practice location significantly influenced the level of knowledge (p < 0.05). However, actual prescribing practice was a cause for concern. Only 66.1% of Croatian dentists felt they had received adequate training during their studies, and even fewer in Serbia (48.4%) and Bosnia (46.6%). It is noteworthy that 9.7% of dentists in Bosnia and Herzegovina prescribe antibiotics at the request of patients, while 22.3% of Croatian and 25.4% of Serbian dentists do so. Many dentists prescribe no or only one antibiotic per week. In addition, 50.9% of Croatian dentists reported adverse effects related to the use of antibiotics, while only 31.3% of Bosnian and 33.6% of Serbian dentists reported similar experiences. Conclusions: While the study results indicate that dentists in the region generally possess good knowledge of antibiotic use, there are significant discrepancies between this knowledge and actual prescribing practices. This highlights the need for enhanced educational programs and awareness initiatives focused on proper antibiotic guidelines to improve prescribing behaviors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.