ABSTRACT
Objective: According to recent studies and systematic review and meta-analysis, there is not enough evidence to determine which has a positive effect on COVID-19 epidemics, and the number of articles is very low. Therefore, the present study aims to compare the efficiency of positive results between N95 respirators and medical masks. Methods: Among the electronic databases, we selected Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI, and Embas for systematically review the publications from 2010 to 2020. We then applied a software program called Endnote X8 to investigate the electronic topics and used mesh terms and concepts for searching. Log risk-ratio between both groups (N95 respirators & medical masks) with 95% confidence interval (CI), Mantel-Haenszel method as well as fixed effect model were computed. Moreover, we employed a commercial software program called Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Stata 16 for evaluating forest plots and meta-analysis. Results: Totally, we observed 27 s and topics with the potential relevance in the course of the manual and electronic searches so that three papers matched our inclusion criteria for performing a systematic review. Risk ratio equaled (RR, 0.01 95% CI 0.00, 0.02. P= 0.07), showing that using N95 respirators and medical masks did not significantly differ in preventing respiratory viral infections. Moreover, Using N95 respirators and medical masks did not significantly differ in preventing bacterial colonization (p=0.02). Conclusion: This research revealed a positive impact of both N95 respirators and medical masks for COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Aim: One of the main factors that play a pivotal role in the transmission of COVID-19 from human to human is saliva;according to the subject's importance, the present study aimed to evaluate the potential of transmission via the saliva of coronavirus disease. Methods: PubMed, ISI, Embase, Scopus, Medicine have been used until September 2020 to search for articles. Therefore, EndNote X9 used to manage electronic resources. A 95% confidence interval (CI) effect size, fixed effect model, Inverse-variance methods have been calculated. The positive rate of SARS-CoV2 assessed with meta analysis. To deal with potential heterogeneity, random effects were used, and I2 showed heterogeneity. I2 values above 50% signified moderate-to-high heterogeneity. The Meta-analysis has been evaluated with Stata/MP v.16 (the fastest version of Stata) statistical software. Results: According to the study's purpose, in the initial search with keywords, 19 articles were found, the full text of 3 studies was reviewed, and finally, three studies were selected. The positive rate of SARS-CoV2 was 86% (86%;95% CI 67 %-100%). Conclusion: saliva can be a non-invasive specimen type for diagnosis of COVID-19. Dentists should be aware that saliva plays a major role in the transmission of COVID-19 from human to human, and failure to follow prevention protocols can contaminate them. © 2021. All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the epidemiological evidence, symptoms, and transmission routes of Coronavirus Disease 19 for clinical dental care. Material and Methods: PubMed, Embase, ISI, Scopus, Medicine have been used to search for articles until October 2020. Therefore, EndNote X9 was used to manage electronic resources. A 95% confidence interval (CI) effect size, random effect model, and the REML method were evaluated. Forty-one articles were found. In the first step of selecting studies, 40 studies were selected to review the abstracts. Finally, six studies were selected. Results: The effect size of symptoms of COVID-19 was fever: 92% (ES = 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.06), cough: 73% (ES = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.88), headache: 8% (ES = 0.8, 95% CI 0.06-0.22), myalgia 13% (ES = 0.13, 95% CI 0.01-0.27) and nasal congestion 22% (ES = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.39). The following recommendations are appropriate during COVID-19 for dental emergency management: personal protective equipment and hand cleanliness practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), preprocedural mouth rinse, single-use (disposable), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and periapical (PA) radiography, Rubber dam, sodium hypochlorite for root canal irrigation, disinfect inanimate surfaces, ultrasonic scaling instruments and airborne infection isolation. Conclusion: Fever should be used as the first sign in the diagnosis;dentists should measure the fever of all patients at the time of arrival and before any procedure and then ask about other symptoms.