Global Oral Health Policies and Guidelines: Using Silver Diamine Fluoride for Caries Control.

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) was developed in Japan in the 1960s. It is a clear solution containing silver and fluoride ions. Because of its anti-bacterial and remineralizing effect, silver diamine fluoride has been used in managing dental caries for decades worldwide. This paper aims to summarize and discuss the global policies, guidelines, and relevant information on utilizing SDF for caries management. SDF can be used for treating dental caries in most countries. However, it is not permitted to be used in mainland China. Several manufacturers, mainly in Australia, Brazil, India, Japan, and the United States, produce SDF at different concentrations that are commercially available around the world. The prices differ between contents and brands. Different government organizations and dental associations have developed guidelines for clinical use of SDF. Dental professionals can refer to the specific guidelines in their own countries or territories. Training for using SDF is part of undergraduate and/or postgraduate curriculums in almost all countries. However, real utilization of SDF of dentists, especially in the private sector, remains unclear in most places because little research has been conducted. There are at least two ongoing regional-wide large-scale oral health programs, using SDF as one of the components to manage dental caries in young children (one in Hong Kong and one in Mongolia). Because SDF treatment does not require caries removal, and it is simple, non-invasive, and inexpensive, SDF is a valuable strategy for caries management in young children, elderly people, and patients with special needs. In addition, to reduce the risk of bacteria or virus transmission in dental settings, using SDF as a non-aerosol producing procedure should be emphasized under the COVID-19 outbreak.

Perceived Preparedness of Dental Academic Institutions to Cope with the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Country Survey.

Dental academic institutions are affected by COVID-19. We assessed the perceived COVID-19 preparedness of these institutions and the characteristics of institutions with greater perceived preparedness. An international cross-sectional survey of dental academics was conducted from March to August 2020 to assess academics' and institutional attributes, perceived preparedness, and availability of infection prevention and control (IPC) equipment. Principal component analysis (PCA) identified perceived preparedness components. Multilevel linear regression analysis assessed the association between perceived preparedness and fixed effect factors (academics' and institutions' attributes) with countries as random effect variable. Of the 1820 dental academics from 28 countries, 78.4% worked in public institutions and 75.2% reported temporary closure. PCA showed five components: clinic apparel, measures before and after patient care, institutional policies, and availability of IPC equipment. Significantly less perceived preparedness was reported in lower-middle income (LMICs) (B = -1.31, p = 0.006) and upper-middle income (UMICs) (B = -0.98, p = 0.02) countries than in high-income countries (HICs), in teaching only (B = -0.55, p < 0.0001) and in research only (B = -1.22, p = 0.003) than teaching and research institutions and in institutions receiving ≤100 patients daily than those receiving >100 patients (B = -0.38, p < 0.0001). More perceived preparedness was reported by academics with administrative roles (B = 0.59, p < 0.0001). Academics from low-income countries (LICs) and LMICs reported less availability of clinic apparel, IPC equipment, measures before patient care, and institutional policies but more measures during patient care. There was greater perceived preparedness in HICs and institutions with greater involvement in teaching, research, and patient care.

Mitigating Global Oral Health Inequalities: Research Training Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Although oral diseases are largely preventable, they are among the most non-communicable diseases globally, and they disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities, specially within low- and middle-income nations. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the social, economic, and health inequalities in our society, including the existing global oral health inequalities. There is a shortage of dentist-scientist all around the world, especially in developing countries, such as Thailand. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and Fogarty International Center (FIC), joined efforts on creating research capacity in oral health in South East Asia through the Fogarty International Center Training Program in Clinical, Public Health and Behavioral Oral Health Research for Thailand (2006-2016). The University of Washington (USA), Thammasat University (Thailand) and Khon Kaen University (Thailand) partnered to conduct short-, medium- and long-term training programs to build regional oral health research capabilities. Investing in research has not only impacted trainees' career development but enhanced advancement of oral health research of South East Asia. The success of partnership calls for expanding oral health research training in other low-income countries.

Knowledge of dental academics about the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-country online survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic affecting all aspects of life in all countries. We assessed COVID-19 knowledge and associated factors among dental academics in 26 countries. METHODS: We invited dental academics to participate in a cross-sectional, multi-country, online survey from March to April 2020. The survey collected data on knowledge of COVID-19 regarding the mode of transmission, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, protection, and dental treatment precautions as well as participants' background variables. Multilevel linear models were used to assess the association between dental academics' knowledge of COVID-19 and individual level (personal and professional) and country-level (number of COVID-19 cases/ million population) factors accounting for random variation among countries. RESULTS: Two thousand forty-five academics participated in the survey (response rate 14.3%, with 54.7% female and 67% younger than 46 years of age). The mean (SD) knowledge percent score was 73.2 (11.2) %, and the score of knowledge of symptoms was significantly lower than the score of knowledge of diagnostic methods (53.1 and 85.4%, P <  0.0001). Knowledge score was significantly higher among those living with a partner/spouse than among those living alone (regression coefficient (B) = 0.48); higher among those with PhD degrees than among those with Bachelor of Dental Science degrees (B = 0.48); higher among those seeing 21 to 30 patients daily than among those seeing no patients (B = 0.65); and higher among those from countries with a higher number of COVID-19 cases/million population (B = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Dental academics had poorer knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms than of COVID-19 diagnostic methods. Living arrangements, academic degrees, patient load, and magnitude of the epidemic in the country were associated with COVD-19 knowledge among dental academics. Training of dental academics on COVID-19 can be designed using these findings to recruit those with the greatest need.

Behavior change due to COVID-19 among dental academics-The theory of planned behavior: Stresses, worries, training, and pandemic severity.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 pandemic led to major life changes. We assessed the psychological impact of COVID-19 on dental academics globally and on changes in their behaviors. METHODS: We invited dental academics to complete a cross-sectional, online survey from March to May 2020. The survey was based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The survey collected data on participants' stress levels (using the Impact of Event Scale), attitude (fears, and worries because of COVID-19 extracted by Principal Component Analysis (PCA), perceived control (resulting from training on public health emergencies), norms (country-level COVID-19 fatality rate), and personal and professional backgrounds. We used multilevel regression models to assess the association between the study outcome variables (frequent handwashing and avoidance of crowded places) and explanatory variables (stress, attitude, perceived control and norms). RESULTS: 1862 academics from 28 countries participated in the survey (response rate = 11.3%). Of those, 53.4% were female, 32.9% were <46 years old and 9.9% had severe stress. PCA extracted three main factors: fear of infection, worries because of professional responsibilities, and worries because of restricted mobility. These factors had significant dose-dependent association with stress and were significantly associated with more frequent handwashing by dental academics (B = 0.56, 0.33, and 0.34) and avoiding crowded places (B = 0.55, 0.30, and 0.28). Low country fatality rates were significantly associated with more handwashing (B = -2.82) and avoiding crowded places (B = -6.61). Training on public health emergencies was not significantly associated with behavior change (B = -0.01 and -0.11). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a considerable psychological impact on dental academics. There was a direct, dose-dependent association between change in behaviors and worries but no association between these changes and training on public health emergencies. More change in behaviors was associated with lower country COVID-19 fatality rates. Fears and stresses were associated with greater adoption of preventive measures against the pandemic.