New guidelines for antibiotic premedication for dental procedures!!

SonnyJim

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
51
Here it is hot off the presses. For those of you that had previously needed antibiotic pre-medication for dental procedures, there have been significant changes. See the link below

http://ada.org/prof/resources/topics/infective_endocarditis.asp

Remember, to always check with your dental professional and physician prior to following the advice of a nameless, faceless, but well intentioned forum member who just happens to be a dentist :D
 
Wow, cool, thanks for posting this!

Yippee!
 
How timely!

I have a dental appt this morning for a cleaning - checked with the dentist last week about any concerns associated with my recent mitral valve replacement. He said that there were no special concerns with the six month cleaning procedure.

I appreciate the posting of this information.

JohnP
 
Looonnnggg overdue.

The old recommendations were based on rabbit models and were never shown to improve outcomes in humans. They became so ingrained that there were lawsuits for failing do advise them followed by unrelated or coincidental infections, despite the lack of evidence.

This should make a tiny dent in reducing emerging antibiotic resistance, too.
 
I'm going to show this to my sister right away. She was recently diagnosed with a leaky aortic valve. It was discoverd during some testing she was getting due to her heart "skipping a beat" quite often, and she was told she would always need to take antibiotics before getting her teeth cleaned.
 
mykidslovedogs said:
I'm going to show this to my sister right away. She was recently diagnosed with a leaky aortic valve. It was discoverd during some testing she was getting due to her heart "skipping a beat" quite often, and she was told she would always need to take antibiotics before getting her teeth cleaned.

Just a heads up that with modern echocardiographic techniques it is common to see interpretations of "trivial aortic insufficiency" or "minimal pulmonic regurgitation" and the like. Many think these are normal variations innocently revealed by the test; they all have to be interpreted in the context of the patient's symptoms, exam findings, etc.
 
Rich_in_Tampa said:
Just a heads up that with modern echocardiographic techniques it is common to see interpretations of "trivial aortic insufficiency" or "minimal pulmonic regurgitation" and the like. Many think these are normal variations innocently revealed by the test; they all have to be interpreted in the context of the patient's symptoms, exam findings, etc.

Hmmm...Do you think she should go in for a second opinion? Because....in my experience, things like that could result in complications with getting insurance, and she is thinking about leaving her employment soon.
 
Oh man...I have a (corrected) congenital heart defect on the "doesn't need it anymore" list. You made my day! :)
 
mykidslovedogs said:
Hmmm...Do you think she should go in for a second opinion? Because....in my experience, things like that could result in complications with getting insurance, and she is thinking about leaving her employment soon.

If her primary is an internist or if a cardiologist was involved, it may not be necessary. If not, perhaps a call to the performing cardiologist would suffice.

Hope she doesn't get penalized on her insurance because of this - doesn't seem fair, not like she has done something wrong.

Anyway, best place to start is to call her primary for clarification.
 
Rich_in_Tampa said:
Hope she doesn't get penalized on her insurance because of this - doesn't seem fair, not like she has done something wrong.

Of course she will be penalized on her insurance. If she is lucky, she will only be uprated. I have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation which is controlled with inexpensive generic medication. Of course, it made me uninsurable. Strange thing is it was discovered by chance when I went to my doctor for something else. My cardiologist said I probably had it for years undiagnosed since I was in sinus rhythm most of the time. Makes me think there could be lots of people walking around with this condition undiagnosed. Yet since they don't know about it, they don't have to report on their insurance application, and thus, sail right through, probably with a preferred rate, and then have a stroke one day. Isn't it ironic that we have an insurance system that penalizes people for having a potentially serious problem diagnosed and treated, yet will readily issue policies to those who may be ignorant of potential health issues? Same can be said about undiagnosed diabetics. If you have diabetes, forget about ever getting health insurance in MKLD's world, yet I have read that often well-controlled diabetics who catch it early may well be in better health than most insured folks.
 
The purpose of insurance is to protect against an unforseen event. If you are ignorant of an existing condition, then the outcome is unforseen, thus purchasing insurance BEFORE you are ever diagnosed with a condition is the whole purpose of being insured. We don't penalize people for having an existing condition. We penalize people for not purchasing insurance as protection against the unknown. Rather, people think that health insurance is an entitlement that they should have access to after they get sick....yet they don't want to pay anything into the pool while they are healthy. For some reason, people feel like they are being ripped off when they pay premiums but don't have to use the coverage.

When your employer gives you free insurance or a huge discount for having insurance while employed, that is a benefit, but it's not really insurance in the sense that it is practically free (to you) and it is guaranteed, which means there was no incentive for you to purchase it in anticipation of protecting yourself against an unforseen event. The sad thing is, that's what we Americans have gotten used to in the health insurance industry. If health insurance was never tied to employment in the first place, with all of the rules and regs attached to that, we wouldn't be in this boat in the first place.

When we buy life insurance, we do it to protect our loved ones from a financial catastrophy created by an unknown event (the date when we are going to die). We should purchase health insurance in the same manner - to financially protect ourselves from the unknown event of when we are going to get sick.

Once we get sick and our risk becomes known to the insurance company, it's too late! The same is true for life insurance...ie....you can't just go out and buy it after you've been diagnosed with terminal cancer. ...you have to buy it before you know that you are terminally ill.

Although I feel bad for my sister, I have warned her many many times that if she wants to retire early, she should insure herself instead of taking advantage of the benefits. She chose to go with the benefits, and now she may be tied to work. That was her CHOICE. There's always the Colorado Risk Pool, Cover Colorado to fall back on, albeit it is a bit more expensive than the individual market, but it is guaranteed issue.
I don't see anything wrong with that...she presents a higher risk to the carrier, therefore, she should probably have to pay a higher premium. Had she taken my advice and purchased her own insurance before she was diagnosed, then she would have the lower rates. That's just the way it goes.
 
Back
Top Bottom