National Elf Service

No bias. No misinformation. No spin. Just what you need!
The Dental Elf

No increase in infective carditis after reducing routine antibiotic prophylaxis

Douglas Badenoch

NICE Guideline 64 does not recommend the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in invasive dental procedures to prevent infective carditis.  Their guideline states that patients should only be offered it if the procedure is at a site where there is already a suspected infection.

This guidance caused some difficulties for dentists, as reported in the British Dental Journal in July.  The conclusion was that dentists need to understand the evidence behind this recommendation to help them explain it to patients.

An observational study in the British Medical Journal has found no evidence of an increase in infective carditis since the reduction of routine antibiotic prophylaxis.

There is still a need for rigorous studies to identify the role of prophylaxis in patients at high risk of developing infective carditis.

Third molar surgery and antibiotic use
Peri-implantitis: Are locally administered antibiotics effective?
Post-operative endodontic symptoms: Are they improved by prophylactic antibiotics?
Written by

I am an information scientist with an interest in making knowledge from systematic research more accessible to people who need it. This means you. I've been attempting this in the area of Evidence-Based Health Care since 1995. So far the results have been mixed. For some reason we expected busy clinicians to search databases and appraise papers instead of seeing patients. We also expected publishers to make the research freely available to the people who paid for it.. Ha! Hence The National Elf service.

Add a comment
  • stephen murray

    stephen murray

    14 years ago
    This is a great article that follows up on a controversial change in prescribing habits. As a dentist, I would agree that the NICE guidelines caused some difficulties for dentists, and it was great to see the BMJ article show that there wasn't a subsequent increase in the disease after we eased off the prescribing. That said, when I get a letter from a cardiologist advising me to continue prophylactic measures for a patient, I don't want to disagree with them - and to me that's compatible with the conclusion (in the abstract) "and further clinical trials should determine if antibiotic prophylaxis still has a role in protecting some patients at particularly high risk."