Dar-Odeh et al Although it has been stated that dentistry’s contribution to the development of antimicrobial resistance is unknown (Haas et al 1998), recent surveys reported that dentists have a tendency towards: over-prescribing, using lower dosage of antibiotics, using broad spectrum antibiotics, a lack of knowledge of the incidence of adverse reactions, and very poor medical history record taking (Murti and Morse 2007). They also showed that dentists have less knowledge about antibiotic prescribing (Demirbas et al 2006). An alarming ﬁnding was that in certain countries, up to 84% of dental practitioners were likely to prescribe an antimicrobial agent when there was no clinical indication (Al-Haroni and Skaug 2006). On the other hand, some countries such as Norway show a different pattern of antibiotic prescription among dentists where it was found that dentists prefer to prescribe narrow-spectrum antibiotics and that their prescribing is conservative and relatively low compared with that of physi- cians (Al-Haroni and Skaug 2007). Furthermore, one survey among dental practitioners conducted in Canada found that recent graduates appeared to prescribe at a lower rate than earlier graduates after dental treatment in general (Epstein et al 2000). Of a similar signiﬁcance is the prescription of analgesics. Pain management is inherent to dental practice (Haas 1999). Most analgesic drugs in common use by dental practitioners fall into three categories: paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and opioid analgesics. The safest of these is paracetamol, however, one should consider liver damage in case of drug overdose. There is sufﬁcient evidence to support interactions between NSAIDS and certain classes of antihypertensives and anticoagulants (Haas 1999). Moreover the prolonged combination of paracetamol and aspirin might cause serious damage to the kidneys (Haas 1999). A substantial number of local anesthetic injections is used in most dental practices on a daily basis. The use of local anesthesia is extremely safe (Orr and Curtis 2005), however a number of complications can arise (Peñarrocha-Diago and Sanchis-Bielsa 2000; Blanton and Jeske 2003; Dogan and Dora 2005). Although controversial, the issue of obtaining a patient’s consent prior to administering local anesthesia has been suggested (Orr and Curtis 2005). There are a number of adverse drug interactions associated with local anesthetics. These drug interactions can happen between local anesthetics themselves, or between local anesthetics on one hand and on the other with certain antibiotics, inhibitors of metabolism, and opioid drugs (Moore 1999). These drug interactions combined with 1112 the systemic effects of drug toxicity make it essential to document all local anesthetic injections given to patients including the drug given with its dose and quantity along with the injection technique and the concentration of vaso- constrictor when relevant. An important aspect of clinical dentistry is the documen- tation – in patients’ records – of clinical procedures and all the related aspects of treatment such as drug prescriptions, local anesthetic injections and requested investigations. This aspect becomes even more essential when the patient is being treated by a number of practitioners either in the same specialty or in different specialties for medicolegal reasons. Another important factor to be considered when looking at dental patients is the growing number of ageing patients and patients with medically compromising conditions. The aim of this study was to analyze clinical records of dental patients attending University of Jordan Hospital, a teaching hospital in Jordan. This was to investigate the implementation by dental specialists working in that hospital of the documentation procedures of their drug prescriptions and local anesthetic injections. Materials and methods Dental records Dental records at the University of Jordan Hospital were collected over the period of April 3rd to April 26th. The Dental Department included 32 dental specialists at the time of collecting and reviewing the records. However, for travelling and leaving reasons the records from only 28 spe- cialists were available. All dental specialists were informed about the prospective nature of data collection by means of a memorandum distributed in January 2007. The memorandum explained that all dental records of their patients will be checked to collect information about docu- mentation of prescriptions and local anesthetic injections. The ethical committee in the hospital gave its consent to this study late March and the collection of records started on April 3rd and ended on April 26th when 1000 records were collected. Clinical records of patients treated under sedation or general anesthesia were excluded. Furthermore, patients who were seen in their review visits were excluded. The dental records were analyzed twice a day: at midday and at 5:00 pm, which are the times patients’ ﬁles are collected every day from the clinics. Data were summarized on a form specially designed for this purpose. The form included entries for: specialist name; patient’s relevant information: the name, date of birth, medical history, dental procedure Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2008:4(5)