Medication discrepancies in the dental record and impact of pharmacist-led intervention
Open accessAbstract
Background Patients frequently use medications with potential implications for oral health and dental procedures, yet little is known about the accuracy of medication lists available to dentists. The aims of this study were to describe the frequency and clinical implications of medication discrepancies in the dental record (phase 1) and to evaluate the impact of pharmacist intervention on medication reconciliation processes in dental practice (phase 2). Methods A prospective, single-centre study evaluating adults receiving dental care was conducted. Discrepancies between the dental record and patient-reported medications were identified through a pharmacist-led medication review and were further evaluated for potential clinical significance based on drug-induced orofacial adverse-effect profiles. A multifaceted pharmacist-led intervention was implemented. Data were analysed using Poisson regression with a significance level set at 0.05. Results One-hundred and thirty patients (48% women; mean age 57 years) were interviewed by a clinical pharmacist (100 before intervention and 30 at follow-up). Of 860 medications reported, 618 discrepancies were identified, medication omission being the most common (71.7%). Of medications omitted, 64.6% had potential oral adverse effects, 7.9% could interact with local anaesthetics/vasoconstrictors and 19.1% had potential bleeding effects. The intervention resulted in a reduction in the number of medication discrepancies and medication omissions (P < 0.001). Conclusions Medication discrepancies in the dental record occur at an alarming rate and frequently involve medications known to cause oral health problems or complications with dental procedures. A pharmacist-led intervention targeting medication reconciliation processes is an effective strategy for improving the accuracy of the dentist's medication list.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Dentists may lack access to patients' full medication histories, which can result in missed or underestimated DDIs and increase the risk of DDI-related harm.
“Compounding the challenge, dentists may lack access to patients' full medication histories, which can result in missed or underestimated DDIs and increase the risk of DDI-related harm [23][24][25].”
From Comparing Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek) and Oral Surgeons in Detecting Clinically Relevant Drug–Drug Interactions in Dental Therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tayeb, S., Barausse, C., Pellegrino, G., Sansavini, M., Pistilli, R., & Felice, P. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152312851 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Choi, H. J., Stewart, A. L., & Tu, C.
- Affiliations
- Duquesne University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Choi, Hailey J.
- Venue
- International Dental Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 318-325
- ISSN
- 0020-6539 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9378850
- OpenAlex
- W2617552328
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Dental Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pennsylvania Pharmacists Association Educational Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- medication discrepancies, dental records, medication reconciliation, pharmacist intervention, medication review, medication omission, bleeding risk, oral health, dental treatment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Dental Records, Drug Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pharmacists, Prospective Studies, Medication Reconciliation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review