Thermographic Control of Pediatric Dental Patients During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemics Using Smartphones

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the reliability of infrared (IR) thermal camera connected to smartphones, already used in medicine for diagnostic purposes, as an easy tool for access screening to pediatric dentistry services. Material and Methods: After the preventive telephone triage, thirty orthodontic patients (7-13 years) underwent temperature measurement in the office with two no-contact IR devices: forehead digital thermometer and thermal-camera connected to a smartphone (reference areas: forehead, inner canthi, ears). Measurements were compared and differences were statistically investigated with T student's test (p<0.01). Results: Forehead digital thermometer temperatures were superimposable to those recorded in ear areas and inner canthi with the thermal camera connected to a smartphone. Differences were not statistically significant even in comparison between the sexes. Forehead temperature values detected with a thermal camera are lower than those detected with a digital forehead thermometer. Conclusion: Thermal camera on a smartphone could be reliable in measuring body temperature. Mobile thermographic values of ears and inner canthi areas can be used as an alternative to forehead digital thermometer measurements. Further applications in pediatric dentistry of thermography on smartphones should be examined.

Impact of the SARS-Cov2 Pandemic on Orthodontic Therapies: An Italian Experience of Teleorthodontics

Abstract Objective: To assess the possibility of controlling patients at a distance according to principles of teleorthodontics to understand its possible usefulness in the future routine activity and the impact pandemic may have had on different types of orthodontic treatments. Material and Methods: One hundred orthodontic patients (57 F, 43 M, age 7-46) during quarantine were checked through videocalls and photos sent by patients following proper instructions. Three groups have been distinguished based on the type of therapy: A-fixed appliances; B-removable appliances; C-clear aligners. Relevant events about dental and gingival health, integrity of appliances, orthodontic therapies related symptoms and overall progress of treatments were recorded. Results: A and B groups reported higher percentages of gingival inflammation (27 and 22%), dental plaque (16 and 13%), deciduous tooth loss (8 and 16%). Bracket and attachment detachment were the most frequent events in A and C groups (22 and 23%). Pain and discomfort were reported in A and B groups (35 and 32%). Therapies continued to progress better in C (51% improved dental alignment) and B (31% improved malocclusions) groups. Conclusion: Orthodontics is safe and allows during emergencies to postpone checks. Everyday mobile-technology is useful in managing orthodontic patients unable to carry out in-person control. When their effectiveness equals other systems, treatments with clear aligners without attachments should be preferred in patients unavailable for regular checks.