The Management of Anticoagulated Patients Requiring Dental Extraction: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Oral Surgeons and Hematologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Studies in the dental literature and guidelines from the American Dental Association (ADA) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) suggest that oral anticoagulants do not need to be discontinued prior to dental extraction. Despite this, anticoagulants are routinely discontinued due to perceived risks in bleeding. This practice may place patients at avoidable risk of thromboembolic complications. Objectives: To compare how oral surgeons and hematologists manage patients receiving long-term vitamin K antagonists (warfarin) who also require dental extraction. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Pre-tested surveys were mailed to 168 oral and maxillofacial surgeons and 123 hematologists/thromboembolism specialists licensed to practice in Ontario, Canada. The survey consisted of 3 parts: an assessment of bleeding and thrombotic risk factors that influence practioners’ decision to discontinue anticoagulants, individual scenarios assessing practice patterns, and clinical scenarios with varying risks of bleeding and thrombosis. For the clinical scenarios, respondents were asked to rate their risk perception on a 10-point scale, and the means and standard deviations of the responses between oral surgeons and hematologists were compared using unpaired t-tests, SPSS Version 12.0. Results: A total of 291 surveys were mailed with a response rate of 47% (136 surveys). 82 (60%) of the respondents were oral surgeons (75% community-based, 25% academic) and 54 (40%) were hematologists (28% community-based, 72% academic). Warfarin is routinely discontinued at least 50% of the time by 37% of dental surgeons, compared to 71% of hematologists; 29% of hematologists reported always discontinuing warfarin. The 3 main factors that influence oral surgeons’ and hematologists’ decision to discontinue warfarin are complicated procedures, multiple extractions and patients with a prior history of bleeding; 20% of hematologists discontinue anticoagulants because of specific referral to manage anticoagulants around the time of extraction. The maximum international normalized ratio (INR) that hematologists consider acceptable for extraction is 2.0, with no hematologists recommending extraction above this level; 86% of oral surgeons would proceed with extraction with an INR up to 3.0. In the individual scenarios, oral surgeons are more likely to continue warfarin and use local measures (sutures, gelfoam) to control bleeding. Hematologists are more likely to discontinue warfarin, use bridging anticoagulant therapy and recommend antifibrinolytic agents. In the clinical scenarios assessing thrombotic risk, oral surgeons are more likely to perceive that the risk of thrombosis is higher than hematologists (p < 0.01). In contrast, in the clinical scenarios assessing bleeding risk, the risk of bleeding was rated to be similar by both groups. Conclusions: Despite ADA and ACCP recommendations to continue anticoagulant therapy in most patients undergoing dental procedures, over 70% of hematologists, and 37% of dental surgeons in our survey frequently discontinue anticoagulants. Although the cited reasons for discontinuation are similar between the 2 groups, the frequency of discontinuation is significantly lower in oral surgeons and may be related to the perception that thromboembolic risks are high compared to hematologists’ risk assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".