MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393067979 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics13040289

Antibiotic Over-Prescription by Dentists in the Treatment of Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4393067979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juan A. Méndez-Millán, María León‐López, Jénifer Martín-González, Juan J. Saúco‐Márquez, Daniel Cabanillas‐Balsera, Juan J. Segura‐Egea

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionCochrane LibraryAntibioticsPeriodontitisDentistryMEDLINESystematic reviewInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After pulp infection and necrosis, the passage of microbial antigens into the periapical space causes apical periodontitis (AP). Most of the clinical forms of AP can be managed without prescribing antibiotics, only with root canal treatment and abscess drainage or, where appropriate, tooth extraction. However, the scientific literature provides evidence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions by dentists in the management of apical disease. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the global pattern of antibiotic prescription in the treatment of apical disease. METHODS: PRISMA Guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. The research question was as follows: What is the pattern of antibiotic prescription by dentists in the treatment of the different clinical forms of apical periodontitis? A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Wiley Online Database, Web of Science and Scopus. All studies reporting data about the pattern of antibiotic prescription by dentists in the treatment of apical disease were included. The meta-analyses were calculated using the Open Meta Analyst version 10.10 software. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 96 articles and thirty-nine cross-sectional studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall percentage of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists in cases of symptomatic AP was 25.8%, and 31.5% in cases of asymptomatic AP with sinus tract present. The percentage of dentists prescribing antibiotics in cases of acute apical abscess with no/mild symptoms was 47.7%, whereas, in cases of acute apical abscess with moderate/severe symptoms, 88.8% of dentists would prescribe antibiotics. Endodontists prescribe antibiotics at a lower rate than general practitioners. The total risk of bias was considered moderate, and the final rating for the certainty of the evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists worldwide are over-prescribing antibiotics in the management of apical disease. It is necessary to improve antibiotic prescribing habits in the treatment of endodontic infections, as well as educational initiatives to encourage the rational and appropriate prescription of antibiotics in periapical diseases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207