R A Seymour1, J M Whitworth, M Martin. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Framlington Place, NE2 4BW. R.A.Seymour@ncl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical review of the current evidence that implicates dental-induced bacteraemia as a risk for joint infections in patients fitted with joint prostheses and appraise the need for antibiotic prophylaxis. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Mainly hospital-based patients or subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between joint infections and dental treatment is equivocal at the best and there is no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis provides such patients with any protection. RESULTS: Microbiological evidence linking dental treatment-induced bacteraemia to joint infections is weak and if an oral commensal is implicated, it is more likely to have arisen either from a spontaneous bacteraemia or from a dental infection. As a consequence of the latter, we recommended the institution of good dental health prior to joint replacement. There may be a case for providing prophylaxis to the immuno-compromised patient, but only if the immuno-suppression is associated with a neutropenia. In such circumstances, only emergency treatment should be considered until the neutropenia is resolved. Antibiotic regimens that are recommended by orthopaedic surgeons have not been evaluated in a randomised placebo-controlled study and many of the drugs are not licensed for this purpose. The evidence on cost-risk benefit seems to demonstrate that antibiotic prophylaxis with either amoxicillin or penicillin is not cost effective when compared with no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The case for providing antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental treatment in patients fitted with a joint prosthesis is weak or virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the risk from providing prophylaxis is greater than the risk of a joint infection.
OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical review of the current evidence that implicates dental-induced bacteraemia as a risk for joint infections in patients fitted with joint prostheses and appraise the need for antibiotic prophylaxis. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Mainly hospital-based patients or subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between joint infections and dental treatment is equivocal at the best and there is no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis provides such patients with any protection. RESULTS: Microbiological evidence linking dental treatment-induced bacteraemia to joint infections is weak and if an oral commensal is implicated, it is more likely to have arisen either from a spontaneous bacteraemia or from a dental infection. As a consequence of the latter, we recommended the institution of good dental health prior to joint replacement. There may be a case for providing prophylaxis to the immuno-compromised patient, but only if the immuno-suppression is associated with a neutropenia. In such circumstances, only emergency treatment should be considered until the neutropenia is resolved. Antibiotic regimens that are recommended by orthopaedic surgeons have not been evaluated in a randomised placebo-controlled study and many of the drugs are not licensed for this purpose. The evidence on cost-risk benefit seems to demonstrate that antibiotic prophylaxis with either amoxicillin or penicillin is not cost effective when compared with no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The case for providing antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental treatment in patients fitted with a joint prosthesis is weak or virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the risk from providing prophylaxis is greater than the risk of a joint infection.
Authors: Lance T Vernon; Catherine A Demko; Christopher C Whalen; Michael M Lederman; Zahra Toossi; Mianda Wu; Yiping W Han; Aaron Weinberg Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Willem M H Rademacher; Geert H I M Walenkamp; Dirk Jan F Moojen; Johannes G E Hendriks; Theo A Goedendorp; Frederik R Rozema Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 3.717