Evidence summary: what 'cost of illness' evidence is there about cross-infection related infections in dental practice?

Abstract

Since August 2009, members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum (http://www.dentistryresearch.org) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research. The question which receives the most votes each month forms the subject of a critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each month a new round of voting takes place to decide which further questions will be reviewed. Dental practitioners and dental care professionals are encouraged to take part in the voting and submit their own questions to be included in the vote by joining the website.The paper below details a summary of the findings of the seventh critical appraisal. In conclusion, the critical appraisal identified no evidence on the epidemiological scale of cross-infection caused in dental practices and therefore also of the cost impact of cross-infection caused in primary dental practices. As a result, no 'cost of illness', or cost-benefit assessment, exists or is feasible at this time.

Do exposures to aerosols pose a risk to dental professionals?

“…Many studies have shown that bacterial and fungal aerosol concentrations increase during work sessions in dental offices, especially in multi-chair clinics and, therefore, increase the possibility for infectious agent transmission [ 15 , 16 ]. However, the research does not provide evidence of cross-infection generated in dental offices [ 17 ]. Nonetheless, preventive measures should be used by dental professionals to reduce aerosols.…”

Risk of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Transmission in the Dental Healthcare Setting: A Narrative Review

“…A systematic review ranging from 1999 through 2010 reported finding no studies that described incident cases of cross-infection, including MRSA infections, among British DHCPs. 23 Ten percent of the 239 cases of infective endocarditis registered in Japan between 1997 and 2001 were acquired during dental therapy. 24 In 3 of these events S. aureus was isolated, but MRSA was never detected.…”

Evidence-based dentistry – overcoming the challenges for the UK's dental practitioners

“…Once a review was complete, an 'evidence statement' or summary was published online and in the BDJ. These jargon-free summaries of the critically-appraised evidence were produced and published [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] in a form whereby the 'pre-digested' evidence could be easily used by a practitioner. Figure 4 describes the full research agenda-setting process as a series of information exchanges.…”

“…Furthermore, wider availability of easily accessible pre-processed evidence syntheses on relevant topics, such as the short reviews published in the series by Fox [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] can and should promote interest in, and hopefully the growth of, the application of research evidence in practice. Such short, jargon-free précis of the research evidence have been shown to be appreciated by practitioners 34 because the average dentist does not have the time to read, digest and synthesise all the evidence on a given topic, and unless evidence review is comprehensive there is always a danger that bias and incorrect conclusions are drawn.…”