Dar-Odeh et al severe drug response that occurs in a dental ofﬁce might not patients’ attitudes to drug therapy (Aronson 2004) are be well-documented, because the practice of dental medicine essentially required for improving clinical dental practice often is isolated within a community (Moore et al 1999). whether the practitioner is a specialist or a general practi- Only one type of local anesthetic solution was used. tioner. Raising the standard of record keeping in a hospital Indeed, the records of the Dental Supplies Ofﬁce showed that setting is a joint responsibility of both the hospital central only one type of local anesthetic solution (Lidocaine 2% with system and the dental department. 1:100,000 epinephrine) was dispensed to the dental clinics during the period of the study. Lidocaine 2% with 1:100,000 or 1:80,000 epinephrine is the most appropriate local anes- thetic solution for most dental procedures owing to its safety and suitable duration of action (Malamed 1997). The most common anesthetic solution used by a group of general dental practitioners in the UK was found to be lidocaine/epinephrine (Corbett et al 2005). Lidocaine and prilocaine have the best Food and Drug Administration ranking (Haas 2002). However, local anes- thetics used in dentistry may be associated with a number of adverse reactions. Serious side effects include: allergy, toxicity leading to respiratory depression or cardiovascular collapse, methemoglobinemia (Haas 2002). Some of the well-known drug interactions are those between lidocaine with cimetidine and those between lidocaine and propranolol, however, increased risk of lidocaine toxicity after adminis- tration of a single dose for dental anesthesia resulting from coadministration of cimetidine or propranolol is unlikely and unreported (Moore 1999). Despite the fact that lidocaine is a relatively safe drug for most dental patients, a dental clinic should have various local anesthetic agents to cover different durations of dental procedures and to fulﬁll patients’ requirements according to their medical conditions, and age difference. It is the respon- sibility of the practitioner to order the required materials and instruments. However, when the dentist works in a hospital, other factors play an important role in availability of these materials. Until now, and despite the progress in Jordanian drug manufacture, local anesthetics are imported from Europe or regional countries, which makes the dental profession dependent on local drug stores policies. Audits used to ascertain the numbers of prescriptions written and their appropriateness (Sweeney et al 2004) and educational audits aiming at providing dental practitioners with prescribing guidelines (Palmer et al 2001) are important measures to improve clinical dentistry and to reduce problems arising from drug use. Education on the pathophysiology of clinical problems; on the pharmacology of the drugs used to treat them, on adverse drug reactions and interactions; on the devising of dosage regimens; on monitoring drug therapy; and on 1116 Conclusions Drug prescriptions and local anesthetic injections are docu- mented poorly in the clinical records of patients treated by the study sample of dentists. However, it seems that this sample is conservative in the drug prescriptions and the local anesthetic injections delivered to their patients. Certain measures are recommended to improve documentation technique of drug prescriptions and local anesthetic injections by dentists. Administration of the hospital and the dental department need to do a joint effort to improve record keeping practices by dentists and other specialties when applicable. Disclosure The authors report no conﬂicts of interest in this work. References [ADA] American Dental Association Council on Scientiﬁc Affairs. 2004. Combating antibiotic resistance. J Am Dent Assoc, 135:484–7. Al-Haroni M. 2008. Bacterial resistance and the dental professionals’ role to halt the problem. J Dent, 36:95–103. Al-Haroni M, Skaug N. 2006. Knowledge of prescribing antimicrobials among Yemeni general dentists. Acta Odontol Scand, 64:274–80. Al-Haroni M, Skaug N. 2007. Incidence of antibiotic prescribing in dental practice in Norway and its contribution to national consump- tion. J Antimicrob Chemother, 59:1161–6. Al-Mubarak S, Al-Nowaiser A, Rass MA, et al. 2004. Antibiotic prescription and dental practice within Saudi Arabia; the need to reinforce guidelines and implement specialty needs. J Int Acad Periodontol, 6:47–55. Aronson JK. 2004. Rational prescribing, appropriate prescribing. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 57:229–30. Blanton PL, Jeske AH; ADA Council on Scientiﬁc Affairs, ADA Division of Science. 2003. Avoiding complications in local anesthesia induction: anatomical considerations. J Am Dent Assoc, 134:888–93. [BDA] British Dental Association, British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. 2006. Dental Practitioner’s Formulary. London, UK: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Chate RA, White S, Hale LR, et al. 2006. The impact of clinical audit on anti- biotic prescribing in general dental practice. Br Dent J, 201:635–41. Corbett IP, Ramacciato JC, Groppo FC, et al. 2005. A survey of local anaesthetic use among general dental practitioners in the UK attending postgraduate courses on pain control. Br Dent J, 199:784–7. Dar-Odeh NS, Abu-Hammad OA, Khraisat AS, et al. 2008. An analysis of therapeutic, adult antibiotic prescriptions issued by dental practitioners in Jordan. Chemotherapy, 54:17–22. Demirbas F, Gjermo PE, Preus HR. 2006. Antibiotic prescribing practices among Norwegian dentists. Acta Odontol Scand, 64:355–9. Dogan EA, Dora B. 2005. Transient partial ophthalmoplegia and Horner’s syndrome after intraoral local anesthesia. J Clin Neurosci, 12:696–7. Epstein JB, Chong S, Le ND. 2000. A survey of antibiotic use in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc, 131:1600–9. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2008:4(5)