Usually dentists in Australia give patients oral antibiotics after dentoalveolar surgery as a prophylaxis against wound infection. When this practice is compared to the principle of antibiotic prophylaxis in major surgery it is found to be at variance in a number of ways. In major surgery, the risk of infection should be high, and the consequences of infection severe or catastrophic, before antibiotic prophylaxis is ordered. If it is provided then a high dose of an appropriate spectrum antibiotic must be present in the blood prior to the first incision. Other factors which need to be considered are the degree of tissue trauma, the extent of host compromise, other medical comorbidities and length of hospitalization. Standardized protocols of administration have been determined and evaluated for most major surgical procedures. Dentoalveolar surgery is undoubtedly a skilled and technically challenging procedure. However, in contrast to major surgical procedures, it has a less than five per cent infection rate and rarely has severe adverse consequences. Dentoalveolar surgery should be of short duration with minimal tissue damage and performed in the dental chair under local anaesthesia. Controlled studies for both mandibular third molar surgery and placement of dental implants show little or no evidence of benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis and there is an adverse risk from the antibiotic. This review concludes that there is no case for antibiotic prophylaxis for most dentoalveolar surgery in fit patients. In the few cases where it can be considered, a single high preoperative dose should be given.

Background: Major salivary gland pathology is an uncommon but important finding which may initially present to general dental and medical practitioners. The consequences of misdiagnosis are important, as acute obstruction and neoplasia are the main pathological lesions diagnosed. The purpose of this study was to analyze a consecutive series of major gland pathologies treated surgically to determine diagnostic and treatment problems. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all cases of the major salivary glands treated on an inpatient surgical basis over a five-year period by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of the Royal Adelaide Hospital was performed. Particular emphasis was placed on the referring diagnosis as compared to the final diagnosis. Results: Fifty-four patients had surgical management of 62 major salivary glands over the five-year period. By gland, 18 (33.3 per cent) were parotid, 35 (51.1 per cent) submandibular and nine (16.6 per cent) were sublingual. Fifty-one (82 per cent) of all lesions were inflammatory and 11 (18 per cent) neoplastic. The most common presentations were swelling (72 per cent) and pain (33 per cent). Most patients were referred by general dentists (37 per cent), followed by general medical practitioners (32 per cent) and specialists (28 per cent). The referring diagnosis was correct for only 45 per cent of the dentists but 76 per cent for the general medical practitioners and 87 per cent for the specialists. Only two of the 11 gland neoplasms were correctly identified as neoplasms, both by specialists. The morbidity of the surgical treatment was low. Conclusion:The general dental practitioner is often the first health professional with the opportunity to assess salivary gland pathology, and therefore needs to be aware of the presenting signs and symptoms of major salivary gland lesions.