External compression headache during Covid-19 pandemic: a neglected entity / Cefaléia por compressão externa durante a pandemia de Covid-19: uma entidade negligenciada

Introduction: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is part of the work routine of health professionals, especially during pandemics. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of PPE became constant for long working hours, resulting in adverse effects on the health of professionals, especially headache. Objective: In this review, we explore the scientific literature on headache associated with prolonged use of PPE during the coronavirus pandemic. Method: This is a narrative literature review conducted through the PubMed and Web of Science databases according to the following MeSH descriptors: "Face shield", "Headache" and "Covid-19". Articles that analyzed the presence of headache and other adverse events in health professionals in prolonged use of PPE were included. Results: The included studies point to headache as the most prevalent adverse event, which may be a new headache or the worsening of a previous headache. Other effects were also found, such as pressure marks on the skin, hyperemia in contact areas; suffocation; reduced concentration and excessive sweating. Conclusion: The use of PPE for long periods can cause headaches due to external pressure, in addition to other unwanted events.These effects reveal the importance of studies to make PPE more efficient, ensuring protection for the individual without causing discomfort.

Introdução: Os Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPI) fazem parte da rotina de trabalho dos profissionais de saúde, principalmente durante as pandemias. Durante a pandemia da Covid-19, o uso de EPI tornou-se constante durante longas jornadas de trabalho, resultando em efeitos adversos à saúde dos profissionais, principalmente cefaleia. Objetivo: Nesta revisão, exploramos a literatura científica sobre cefaleia associada ao uso prolongado de EPI durante a pandemia do coronavírus. Método: Trata-se de uma revisão narrativa da literatura realizada por meio das bases de dados PubMed e Web of Science segundo os seguintes descritores MeSH: "Face Shield", "Headache" e "Covid-19". Foram incluídos artigos que analisaram a presença de cefaleia e outros eventos adversos em profissionais de saúde em uso prolongado de EPI. Resultados: Os estudos incluídos apontam a cefaleia como o evento adverso mais prevalente, podendo ser uma nova cefaleia ou o agravamento de uma cefaleia anterior. Também foram encontrados outros efeitos, como marcas de pressão na pele, hiperemia nas áreas de contato; asfixia; concentração reduzida e transpiração excessiva. Conclusão: O uso de EPI por longos períodos pode causar dores de cabeça por pressão externa, além de outros eventos indesejados. Esses efeitos revelam a importância de estudos para tornar os EPI mais eficientes, garantindo proteção ao indivíduo sem causar desconforto.

Os EPI's adotados para controle local de transmissibilidade da COVID-19 no retorno das atividades presenciais de atendimento à população nos cursos de odontologia em Minas Gerais / Personal protective equipment adopted for local control of transferability by COVID-19 in the return of face-to-face activities to serve the population in dentistry courses in Minas Gerais

Desde o início da pandemia, no final de 2019, até a retomada das atividades presencias de atendimento ao público nos cursos da área de saúde em Minas Gerais, especificamente nos cursos de odontologia; foram elaboradas notas técnicas, recomendações e manuais de biossegurança. Documentos esses que serviram como referencial para a padronização de protocolos de atendimento, incluindo o uso de EPI's mais eficientes no controle da transmissibilidade da Covid-19. A pesquisa de revisão foi realizada na base de dados PubMed/MEDLINE e Scielo, World Health Organization, Ministério da Saúde, Associação Brasileira de Ensino Odontológico, Conselho Federal de Odontologia, Conselhos Regionais de Odontologia dos Estados de São Paulo e Minas Gerais e instituições de ensino superior. Priorizando os conteúdos publicados entre os meses de janeiro a setembro de 2020. Período correspondente ao início da pandemia até o retorno das atividades de atendimento nos cursos de saúde em Minas Gerais. Buscando os documentos que nortearam esse retorno e que justificaram a adoção do uso desses EPI's pelos graduandos.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, at the end of 2019, until the resumption of face-to-face activities to serve the public in health care courses in Minas Gerais, specifically in dentistry courses; technical notes, recommendations and biosafety manuals were prepared. These documents served as a reference for the standardization of care protocols, including the use of more efficient personal protection equipment to control Covid-19's transmissibility. The review search was carried out in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Scielo databases, World Health Organization, Ministry of Health of Brazil, Brazilian Association of Dental Education, Federal Council of Dentistry, Regional Councils of Dentistry of the States of São Paulo and Minas Gerais and college. Prioritizing the contents published between January and September 2020. Period corresponding to the beginning of the pandemic until the return of care activities in health courses in Minas Gerais. Seeking the documents that guided this return and that justified the adoption of the use of this personal protective equipment by college students.

Indications for accurate and appropriate use of personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals. A systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The speed of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put enormous pressure on hospitals and other healthcare facilities. This, together with blockages in several countries, has hindered the availability and accessibility of the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available scientific evidence on the efficacy, safety, safe use and reuse of PPE for healthcare professionals, for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies analyzing products for disinfecting and enabling reuse of PPE for coronavirus within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and LILACS databases, for articles published up to November 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected. These analyzed the use of N95, surgical and cotton masks, face shields, flexible enclosures with plastic covers or polycarbonate intubation boxes and plastic curtains; and also PPE disinfection using several substances. CONCLUSION: Combined use of a face shield with a N95 mask proved to be superior to other associations for protecting healthcare workers. Some products are useful for disinfecting PPE, such as 70% ethanol, 0.1% sodium hypochlorite and a mixture of quaternary ammonium and H2O2, and hydrogen peroxide. Ultraviolet light and dry heat at 70 °C can be used to decontaminate N95 masks. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4V5FD at the OPENSCIENCE Framework.

Escudo facial (Face Shield) em tempos de covid-19: uma revisão de literatura / Facial shield use during COVID-19: a literature review

Objetivo: A proposta deste estudo foi analisar a efetividade do escudo facial (face shield) como equipamento de proteção da face, fornecendo subsídios para a adoção dele na realização de procedimentos odontológicos durante a pandemia de COVID-19. Materiais e métodos: Trata-se de um estudo bibliográfico, do tipo revisão integrativa da literatura, que consiste em sintetizar o desfecho da pesquisa em questão de maneira ordenada e eficiente, fornecendo uma maior amplitude de informações sobre o assunto, constituindo um corpo de conhecimento. Para tal, a pesquisa bibliográfica foi realizada nas plataformas EBS-COHost e PubMed, utilizando os descritores "face shield", "faceshield" e "COVID-19", foram preconizados os artigos publicados em 2020 e 2021 em língua portuguesa do Brasil, língua inglesa e língua espanhola. Resultados: Foram selecionados 9 artigos para ilustrar as evidências acerca da efetividade do escudo facial (face shield) como barreira de proteção a ser adotada durante a pandemia de COVID-19. Conclusão: Entende-se, portanto, que a adoção do escudo facial (face shield) para reduzir os efeitos contaminantes dos aerossóis durante a pandemia de COVID-19 é fundamental, uma vez que os estudos recentes atestam a possibilidade de redução dos níveis de contaminação.

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the face shield as a face protection equipment, providing subsidies for its adoption in performing dental procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: This is a bibliographic study, an integrative literature review, which consists of synthesizing the outcome of the research in an orderly and efficient way, providing a greater range of information on the subject, constituting a body of knowledge. Therefore, the bibliographic research was carried out on the EBSCOHost and PubMed platforms, using the descriptors "face shield" or "faceshield" and "COVID-19". The Search includes articles published in 2020 and 2021, in Brazilian Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Results: Nine articles were selected to illustrate the evi-dence about the effectiveness of the face shield as a protection barrier to be adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: It is understood, therefore, that the adoption of the face shield to reduce the contaminating effects of aerosols during the COVID-19 pandemic is fundamental, since recent studies attest to the possibility of reducing such levels of contamination.

Is face mask with face shield more effective than face mask alone in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review

@#<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Background.</strong> The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Objective.</strong> To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Methods.</strong> We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Results.</strong> There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion.</strong> In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.</p>

Sports dentistry: a perspective for the future

Sports Dentistry (SD) acts in the prevention, maintenance and treatment of oral and facial injuries, as well as the collection and dissemination of information on dental trauma, beyond stimulus to research. Establishes as a duty for the dentist detect problems related to the athlete's stomatognathic system. This essay is based on the provided data from the literature related to SD, including definition, practice areas and research fields. To discuss the data, six areas were categorized: shares in sports dentistry; oral health of athlete; sports-related dental implications; dental-facial trauma; face shields; and mouthguards. The analyzed data show that the SD is still an underexplored field of action by dentists, but it is expanding, despite not being recognized specialty by the Federal Council of Dentistry, but the Brazilian Academy of Sports Dentistry has been created with a mission to show the real importance of Dentistry in sport. The dentist should be part of the group of professionals associated with the athlete to perform periodic checks in order to ensure oral health which may contribute to athletes´performance. When impact occurs, however, it would be possible reduce the severity of the impact related to injuries, by using helmets, masks, goggles, face shields and mouthguard. Additionally, it is imperative that dentists, sports coaching, athletes, and professional who work with athletes be aware of the benefits of incorporating SD as an important academic and professional subject.