Antibiotics have various indications for treatment and prophylaxis in dental practice. While only a handful of antibiotics are typically prescribed in dentistry, unlike in medicine, clear indications and appropriate dosing and duration remain controversial among antibiotic-prescribing dentists, which may result in inappropriate or excessive antibiotic prescriptions. This practice can increase the risk of antibiotic resistance and expose patients to unnecessary side effects. Moreover, the concept of antibiotic stewardship in dental practice remains in its early stages. This review was developed by pharmacists (general and infectious disease pharmacists) in collaboration with a periodontist and a maxillofacial surgeon to provide an antibiotic prescription guide for dentists who frequently prescribe antibiotics. It also sheds light on antibiotic stewardship. The review discusses in detail antibiotic indications for treatment and prophylaxis in dental practice and provides tables that can be used by dentists in their everyday practice. It also discusses the concept of antibiotic stewardship and provides recommendations that can be applied to the practice of antibiotic prescribing in dentistry. Antibiotic prescribing in dental practice should be limited to cases with documented infections or when indicated for prophylaxis. Every dentist can act as an antibiotic steward by prescribing antibiotics wisely and only when necessary, using their discernment to identify appropriate cases and exclude those that do not meet infection criteria. Collaboration with pharmacists is encouraged to provide such recommendations and implement antibiotic stewardship interventions, such as developing antibiotic prescription protocols.

Background: Epidemiological studies have shown varying prevalence rates of dental anomalies worldwide, ranging from 5.2% to 56.9%, with a higher rate of 90.4% in patients with cleft lip and palate. In Saudi Arabia, studies have also reported varied prevalence rates, likely due to genetic differences or sampling variations. However, no research has yet evaluated the quality of these studies or provided an overall prevalence estimate, which is the aim of the present study. This systematic review aims to assess the prevalence and types of dental anomalies across various regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified 10 relevant studies on different dental anomalies in Saudi Arabia. The quality of the enrolled studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), showing variability in the methodological quality of the included cohort studies, with several studies demonstrating a moderate to high risk of bias. Results: Common anomalies included hypodontia, hyperdontia, microdontia, and impacted teeth. This study highlights the varying prevalence of dental anomalies in different regions of Saudi Arabia, ranging from 2.6% to 45.1%. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for early diagnosis and tailored treatment approaches to mitigate the clinical challenges posed by these anomalies, underscoring the importance of standardized diagnostic criteria and further research to understand regional and demographic differences in the prevalence of dental anomalies in Saudi Arabia.