4.5 Article

Antibiotic prescribing in dental practice in Belgium

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 1112-1117

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01642.x

Keywords

antibiotics; audit; dentistry; drug use review; prescription

Funding

  1. Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Aim To assess the types and frequency of antibiotic prescriptions by Belgian dentists, the indications for antibiotic prescription, and dentists' knowledge about recommended practice in antibiotic use. Methodology In this cross-sectional survey, dental practitioners were asked to record information about all antibiotics prescribed to their patients during a 2-week period. The dental practitioners were also asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire regarding demographic data, prescribing practices, and knowledge about antibiotic use. A random sample of 268 Belgian dentists participated in the survey. Results During the 2-week period, 24 421 patient encounters were recorded; 1033 patients were prescribed an antibiotic (4.2%). The median number of prescriptions per dentist for the 2 weeks was 3. Broad spectrum antibiotics were most commonly prescribed: 82% of all prescriptions were for amoxycillin, amoxycillin-clavulanic acid and clindamycin. Antibiotics were often prescribed in the absence of fever (92.2%) and without any local treatment (54.2%). The most frequent diagnosis for which antibiotics were prescribed was periapical abscess (51.9%). Antibiotics were prescribed to 63.3% of patients with periapical abscess and 4.3% of patients with pulpitis. Patterns of prescriptions were confirmed by the data from the self-reported practice. Conclusions Discrepancies between observed and recommended practice support the need for educational initiatives to promote rational use of antibiotics in dentistry in Belgium.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available