ABSTRACT
Introduction: Cold therapy (cryotherapy) is a common procedure recommended by dental surgeons after surgical removal of thirdmolars, which is an invasive intervention that often deals with an expressive inflammatory response. Objective: To investigate whether cryotherapy interferes with clinical outcomes such as pain, edema, and trismus in the postoperative period of mandibular third molar surgeries. Data Synthesis: An electronic search was conducted in the OVID, PubMed, VHL, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, through March 2018. The eligibility criteria included clinical trials that evaluated the effect of cryotherapy in at least one of the following variables: pain, swelling, and trismus. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies. The methodological quality of each article was analyzed. The search strategy resulted in 1,088 articles. Following the selection process, 11 studies were included in the systematic review and 4 of them in the meta-analysis. High risk of bias was found in most of the studies according to the Cochrane Handbook assessment. Patients receiving cryotherapy had less edema than patients in the control group at second day follow-up (mean difference [MD]: -0.94; 95%CI [-1.49; -0.39]). There were no statistically significant results when comparing trismus between experimental and control group (MD: 0.43; 95%CI [-0.34;1.20]). There were insufficient available data to support influences in postoperative pain. Conclusions: Cryotherapy applied on thefirstday aftermandibular third molar removal can manage edema in the patients.Well-designed randomized clinical trials to test the efficacy of cryotherapy after surgical removal of third molars are needed to justify its indication (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Tooth Extraction/adverse effects , Cryotherapy , Inflammation/therapy , Postoperative Care , Trismus/therapy , Treatment Outcome , Oral Surgical Procedures/rehabilitation , Edema/therapy , Pain Management , Molar/surgeryABSTRACT
Introdução: Biossegurança é um tema fundamental na odontologia considerando os procedimentos em que o profissional e a equipe de trabalho entram em contato com secreções da cavidade oral,potencialmente contaminantes. Objetivo: Avaliar o conhecimento de biossegurança dos servidores, discentes e empregados da limpeza responsáveis pelas clínicas e laboratórios do curso de Odontologia da UFVJM. Metodologia: Foi realizada uma pesquisa quali-quantitativa, utilizando quatro questionários validados, um para cada grupo-alvo dos envolvidos. Resultados: No total, foram avaliados questionários respondidos por 156 discentes, 17 técnicos, 19 docentes e 7 empregados da limpeza. Observa-se que 84,2% dos docentes abordam o tema biossegurança, entretanto, 31,6% dos docentes consideram que osalunos não são conscientes sobre biossegurança. 42,9% dos funcionários da limpeza não sabem o que é biossegurança, 100% não receberam nenhuma capacitação e gostariam de receber mais informações. Dentre os técnicos do Departamento de Odontologia, 64,7% não receberam treinamento prévio esomente 11,8% recebem treinamento periódico para prevenção de acidentes. Dentre os discentes, 48,7%consideram que o ensino é insuficiente para uma prática clínica segura, 17,9% não usam EPI completo,55,8% dos alunos não saberiam se portar diante a um acidente com material contaminado, apesar de25,6% relatarem que já sofreram algum acidente. Conclusão: A abordagem pedagógica sobre biossegurança no curso de Odontologia deve ser revista para capacitar melhor os alunos e diminuir adistância entre o conhecimento teórico e a prática. É necessário investir em capacitação de toda a equipede profissionais envolvidos no curso de Odontologia.
Introduction: Biosafety is a key issue in dentistry considering the procedures in the professional and the work team come in contact with secretions from the oral cavity, potentially contaminating. Objective: To evaluate the biosafety knowledge of teachers, technicians, students and employees responsible forcleaning clinics and laboratories of the course of Dentistry UFVJM. Methodology: A qualitative andquantitative research was carried out using four validated questionnaires, one for each target group ofthose involved. Results: In total, were evaluated questionnaires answered by 156 students, 17 technicians,19 teachers and 7 employees cleaning. From the results, it is observed that 84.2% of teachers report thataddress biosafety, however, 31.6% of teachers believe that students are not aware of biosafety. 42.9% ofthe cleaning staff do not know what is biosafety, 100% received no training and would like to receive moreinformation. Among the technicians of the Department of Dentistry, 64.7% did not receive prior training andonly 11.8% receive periodic training to prevent accidents. Among the students, 48.7% believe thateducation is insufficient for safe clinical practice, 17.9% do not use PPE complete, 55.8% of studentswould not know how to behave in front of an accident with contaminated material, although 25.6% reportthat have suffered an accident. Conclusion: The pedagogical approach on biosafety in the Dentistry courseshould be revised to better enable students and bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge andpractice. It is necessary to invest in training of all professional staff involved in the course of Dentistry.