Over-Prescription of Antibiotics for Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional Surveys

<b>Background:</b> Pulpitis requires operative dental treatment, and antibiotics are not indicated. Nevertheless, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing persists worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prevalence of antibiotic prescription for pulpitis among dentists. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest (2015-2025) was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies reporting the proportion of dentists prescribing systemic antibiotics for pulpitis were included. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled prevalence for all clinicians, general dental practitioners (GDPs), and endodontists (ENs). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. <b>Results:</b> Twelve cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria, including 3189 dentists. The overall pooled prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for pulpitis was 19.2% (95% CI: 10.4-32.6%), with very high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 98%). GDPs exhibited significantly higher prescribing rates (26.9%, 95% CI: 14.9-43.5%; I<sup>2</sup> = 98%) compared with ENs (5.1%, 95% CI: 1.2-19.2%; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%). Sensitivity analysis excluding two high-prevalence studies reduced the pooled estimate to 13.3% (95% CI: 8.0-21.3%) but heterogeneity remained substantial (I<sup>2</sup> = 95%). Most studies showed moderate-to-high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low due to inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and potential publication bias. <b>Conclusions:</b> Approximately one in five dentists prescribe antibiotics for pulpitis, despite strong guideline recommendations against their use. However, certainty of evidence was very low. Marked variability across regions and clinical profiles highlights persistent gaps in diagnostic accuracy, access to emergency dental care, and antibiotic stewardship. Targeted education, improved urgent care pathways, and strengthened antimicrobial stewardship programs are needed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in pulpitis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Antibiotics
Published
2025-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010013
Primary Topic
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Over-Prescription of Antibiotics for Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional Surveys

D. Cabanillas-Balsera, Juan J. Saúco‐Márquez, Juan J. Segura‐Egea, Jénifer Martín-González et al.
Antibiotics
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
article

Over-Prescription of Antibiotics for Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional Surveys

D. Cabanillas-Balsera, Juan J. Saúco‐Márquez, Juan J. Segura‐Egea, Jénifer Martín-González, Isabel Crespo-Gallardo, María León-López, Paloma Montero-Miralles, Vanessa Delgado-Giugni
article en

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> Pulpitis requires operative dental treatment, and antibiotics are not indicated. Nevertheless, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing persists worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prevalence of antibiotic prescription for pulpitis among dentists. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest (2015-2025) was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies reporting the proportion of dentists prescribing systemic antibiotics for pulpitis were included. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled prevalence for all clinicians, general dental practitioners (GDPs), and endodontists (ENs). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. <b>Results:</b> Twelve cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria, including 3189 dentists. The overall pooled prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for pulpitis was 19.2% (95% CI: 10.4-32.6%), with very high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 98%). GDPs exhibited significantly higher prescribing rates (26.9%, 95% CI: 14.9-43.5%; I<sup>2</sup> = 98%) compared with ENs (5.1%, 95% CI: 1.2-19.2%; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%). Sensitivity analysis excluding two high-prevalence studies reduced the pooled estimate to 13.3% (95% CI: 8.0-21.3%) but heterogeneity remained substantial (I<sup>2</sup> = 95%). Most studies showed moderate-to-high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low due to inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and potential publication bias. <b>Conclusions:</b> Approximately one in five dentists prescribe antibiotics for pulpitis, despite strong guideline recommendations against their use. However, certainty of evidence was very low. Marked variability across regions and clinical profiles highlights persistent gaps in diagnostic accuracy, access to emergency dental care, and antibiotic stewardship. Targeted education, improved urgent care pathways, and strengthened antimicrobial stewardship programs are needed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in pulpitis.

AntibioticsVol. 15(1)
Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.